|
|
On Jimmy Carter and the Nobel When I came across Lowell Ponte's piece at FrontPageMagazine's website on why former President Jimmy Carter doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded last week, I was shocked. Shocked. I can't imagine how this opinion column ever got into print! Ponte trashes an ex-President; he doesn't suffer from the lapses of memory many of us have about the years Carter was president. Many of us remember the taking by Iran of American hostages, but that wasn't Carter's fault, was it? And Ponte doesn't suffer from any excessive respect for an ex-Commander in Chief. Those who were around in the late 1970s remember Carter's constant campaign for "human rights," a term many didn't understand since food and nourishment is a human right but it's a distinctly American attitude that one must work to buy food. And we remember Rosalyn, his high-profile wife, showing up all over the media on talk shows and in the news, doing what recent Democrat first ladies do: trying to be Eleanor Roosevelt, hoping to gain the respect and influence Eleanor was accorded. Rosalyn never did -- but then neither has any first lady with the possible exception of Barbara Bush and Betty Ford. That's another story. We remember the historic peace accord between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat that returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt after being taken in war by Israel. It's assumed that Carter was the catalyst that brought these two men and nations together to change the geography of the world. But Ponte points out these facts: 1. During his one term in office, President Carter participated in destroying half the value of Americans' life savings: after helping cause the highest inflation since the Civil War, one dollar (when he took office in 1977) was worth only 50-cents (when left in 1980). 2. President Carter withdrew money that the CIA was paying religious Mullahs in Iran to tone down their radical religious rhetoric, money withdrawn ostensibly because the Shah was torturing prisoners (many of them Soviet agents) and that violated Carter's "human rights" agenda. 3. The withdrawal of funds caused outrage among Mullahs, who participated in overthrowing the Shah, whom they hated because he was an ally of the West and sold Israel oil during oil embargoes. 4. The Shah's successor, the Ayatollah Khomeini, put thousands of political prisoners to death; quite a violation of "human rights." 5. Because of the new religious fervor of Iranian leaders, war broke out between Iran and Iraq, which in the end took half-a-million lives. 6. Because the Soviet Union sensed a weak foreign policy based on "human rights" at the Carter White House, it invaded Afghanistan believing correctly that the US would do nothing overt about it. Well, Carter did pull our Olympic teams out of the 1980 Olympics. 7. Under President Ronald Reagan, the US began funneling money and arms to Afghan rebels for fighting against Soviet troops. Among those "rebels" was Osama bin Laden, who learned guerilla warfare and terrorism techniques under the tutelage of the CIA. But bin Laden became bitter about his American benefactors and today is a menace to the world, as President George W. Bush puts it, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, September 11th, 2001. 8. Under Reagan, the US backed Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the costly war against the radicalized Iran (the enemy of my enemy is my friend?), sending Hussein money and weapons to battle Iran. This allowed Hussein to generate biological and chemical weapons, laying the groundwork for his later invasion of Kuwait and for the Gulf War. 9. Among other reasons, the US-led allies didn't depose Hussein at the end of the Gulf War because it was feared Iranian religious leaders would move in and take control of Iraq during the resulting "power vacuum." 10. Carter and his policies are therefore responsible for the deaths of more than half-a-million people among the Iranians, Iraqis and the Soviets and other political prisoners in Iran after the fall of the Shah. 11. President Carter has never shown remorse for his failed policies and the deaths they caused -- or even acknowledged that they (and he) may have been short-sighted. 12. Carter has a sympathetic relationship with Cuba's Fidel Castro, an avowed enemy of the United States. 13. President Carter even once planned a unilateral withdrawal of US troops from South Korea, leaving South Korea open to invasion and erasing decades of effort to keep South Korea free from despotic leadership to the north. Mr. Carter's scheme was abandoned only when it was revealed to angry reaction before the fact. 14. Carter was not a "catalyst" in the 1978 peace accord between Israel and Egypt; both Begin and Sadat went to Washington to meet with Carter determined to make peace before there were more needless deaths; bringing the two sides together was a political act, not a diplomatic one, a kind of PR move aimed at getting publicity for the peace accord. Therefore, Mr. Carter doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, Ponte opines, considering the onslaught of violence, death and danger his policies have wrought even until today. It would be an overstatement to blame Mr. Carter for all our Mideast and terror troubles, certainly. But it would be an understatement to say Mr. Carter's policies were flawed. Then, in the news this week comes word that Mr. Carter, four years out of office, called on one Soviet official in 1984 to plead for help in defeating Ronald Reagan's campaign for a second term as president because there would probably be "no nuclear treaties" as long as Reagan was president. Considering his accomplishments, especially in contrast to those of Mr. Carter, perhaps Mr. Reagan should receive a Nobel; that's another one of Ponte's points. And the Nobel Prize committee last week even admitted that it's award to Mr. Carter was actually more of a slap in the face to current "warmongering" US foreign policy under our 43rd president. George W. Bush than it was an honor to the 39th president, Mr. Carter. The evidence mounts that the Nobel Peace Prize 2002 was a sham. It is the province of political writers to criticize even presidents; even ex-presidents who benefit from the short memories of Americans. But I was shocked to find this in the 32nd paragraph, there was an editing mistake: "Sadat, as he knew likely, would be assassinated for making peace with Israel. By comparison Jimmy Carter risked nothing and did almost nothing, except serve beverages and snacks to two great statesmen who had come to Camp David already determined to make peace." The phrase should be "likely knew." An editing mistake. Shocking. Positively shocking. Anything else wrong with Ponte's article? Nope. He's right. A little overstated, but he's right. -- Mike Shiloh Read the original article here. |
|
|