GEORGE W. BUSH DESERVES NOBEL PEACE PRIZE

By Roberto Savio and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

ROME, Jun 30 2008 (IPS) - The next Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded to George W. Bush, writes Roberto Savio, founder and president emeritus of IPS. In this column, Savio writes that in just eight years, US president George Bush has managed to profoundly change his country and the world. I doubt that as president Obama would be able to motivate the formation of an opposition as vast as that of the World Social Forum at Porto Alegre. The clamour of hundreds of thousands of people against imperialism and for a different world was the result of the radicalisation produced in this period. Without it, the creation of a global civil society would have been far slower. The first major contribution of Bush was to demonstrate that unilateralism can no longer work in a world that is increasingly multipolar. He definitively disproved the theory that war can resolve conflict and demonstrated that there can be no consensus to govern without respect for international law. The failure to ratify a single international treaty (starting with Kyoto) has aroused growing irritation and as a consequence the treaty against cluster bombs has been ratified by almost every country on earth.

But if we judge Bush objectively, that is to say, by the results, I believe that the moment has come for lovers of peace and international cooperation to come together to grant him the formal recognition he deserves as the US president that has done the most to create a more just and more democratic world in which the old thinking on the military force and manifest destiny of the superpower is in profound crisis.

The first major contribution of Bush was to demonstrate that unilateralism can no longer work in a world that is increasingly multipolar. Predictions of the decline of the US are debatable, but what is certain is the growing weight of countries like China, India, and Brazil. Bush’s policies have increased Washington’s isolation, not its ability to lead. It is symbolic that at the beginning of his first term the UN was in crisis and the Bretton Woods system (the World Bank and International Monetary Fund) in a dominant position. At the end of his second term the reverse is true.

Another important contribution by Bush is the definitive refutation of the theory that war can resolve conflict. The fact that the US, which spends on arms as much as the 14 next top weapon spenders, finds itself bogged down with its allies in the two wars that it has entered into – despite the fact that Vice President Cheney threatened to attack all ”rogue nations” including Iran and North Korea – shows that it is easy to destroy but difficult to win a war. Iraq will last longer in the American memory than Vietnam.

Bush’s third gift to the world was to prove that there can be no consensus to govern without respect for international law. The failure to ratify a single international treaty (starting with Kyoto) has aroused growing irritation and as a consequence the treaty against cluster bombs has been ratified by almost every country on earth. Moreover, abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the rendition of prisoners to countries that practice torture, the declaration that the Geneva Conventions are no longer binding and that torture is legitimate in the event of war, along with similar initiatives, have isolated the US and dethroned it as the champion of democracy and human rights.

The fourth contribution may seem less important as it is only internal: the arrogation by the executive under Bush of extraordinary powers over the legislature and judiciary has provoked a clamour for the reestablishment of the balance of power among the branches of government, a crucial foundation of democracy.

The fifth contribution, in contrast, is of universal value. Bush has proven that it is not possible to lie and rule with impunity in an age when the people, more than ever before, want their governments to be responsible and accountable to the voters. In the final stretch of the Bush presidency, numerous former administration members and officials have stated in books, interviews, and articles that the administration repeatedly lied to the public and deliberately manipulated it, and not only about Iraq. After they leave office, the final settling of accounts with Bush and Cheney will be even more explosive.

The sixth contribution is certainly the most important: that thanks to Bush the US has significantly lost its right to consider itself a country with a ”manifest destiny”. A Boston Globe poll finds that the number of Americans that believe in the ”American dream” has dropped to 32 percent from 60 percent before Bush took office. The fall of the dollar symbolises the dramatic decline of the United States as an imperial nation and world leader. Polls show that the US has experienced an unprecedented drop in prestige: after September 11 the whole world declared its support for the Commander-in-Chief of an aggressed nation. Today the same polls show that a significant portion of the world’s population considers the US to be the greatest threat to international peace.

Bush, thus, is an exceptional politician who in a mere eight years has managed to profoundly change his country and the world. I doubt that as president Obama would be able to motivate the formation of an opposition as vast as that of the World Social Forum at Porto Alegre. The clamour of hundreds of thousands of people against imperialism and for a different world was the result of the radicalisation produced in this period. Without it, the creation of a global civil society would have been far slower. For this reason, I propose, and ask the world to second me, that the next Nobel Peace Prize be awarded to George W. Bush. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)