Nobel Peace Prize for Jimmy Carter, former US President Ruthless Criticism

Translated from GegenStandpunkt 4-2002

Nobel Peace Prize for Jimmy Carter, former US President

Jimmy Carter received the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his “decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” (Press Release of the Nobel Prize Committee, Oct. 11, 2002). The man deserves it. As

President of the USA, 1977 – 1981,

which he first had to become because peacemaking requires a little more than peanuts, he immediately took on the “threat of world war.” For him – as for everyone in the West – this was coming from the weapons that threatened America and freedom in the rest of the world, and one thing was crystal clear to him: there are simply too many of them and too few of the American ones. So he right away made sure that the necessary funds were available in the defense budget for an effective “deterrence” in the form of a “hot” world war scenario, including a nuclear division. But he also knew something else: the tiresome “arms spiral” that was going on between America and the second “nuclear superpower” couldn’t be allowed to continue under any circumstances. And if the Soviets couldn’t simply be deprived of the weapons that were endangering “world peace,” then he at least wanted to do something to prevent them from producing more and more of them. In return, they would be able to fully rely on America definitely not exceeding its own requirements with its new missiles. And so, with arms control and the SALT II Treaty, in which the two unbeatable world peace powers agreed to upper limits on arms buildups – thus also giving the West room to hopefully calculate that the Soviet colossus, with its notorious feet of clay, would ultimately not be able to keep up – “the risks of a nuclear exchange” was no longer quite as “incalculable” as before. The President was encouraged by this first major step toward a better assessment of the radioactive side effects that the indispensable progress of peace and freedom in the world entailed. Perhaps, he thought, peace would be even more secure if the Russians were encouraged to take a further step. For example, if he explicitly spared them from some of the additional risks of nuclear war – and in compensation they were to simply eliminate the risk posed by their weapons. Pershings and Cruise missiles had already been ordered, but the President was always happy to change his plans for peace, i.e. for his famous zero option in Europe. This would not have made Europe a completely nuclear-free zone, but it would have protected it from SS-20 missiles, which the Russians were supposed to disarm themselves. Unfortunately, however, the slow-moving Russians still needed the message of the next US President to get the good sense of their unilateral disarmament, and made Carter’s mission a success only after his term in office.

As unconventional as Carter’s thinking about the enemy’s weapons was – scrap them, what else? – he also took the same unconventional approach to the respect – enshrined in international law – that the states of the world usually grant each other. He certainly thought that it was unacceptable that states which are governed in a fundamentally wrong way should be rewarded for it and that his country should be on the same level as them. He had to repeatedly tell this to one power in particular, which, together with its bloc, had persistently closed itself off to freedom, democratic governance, and the market economy, and that there are higher, namely moral, rights than those it claims for itself. These are – no, not the Swiss: he invented them! – human rights, and a state that does not respect them in its dealings with its citizens has forfeited its right to exist for this reason alone. The President repeatedly drew attention to this and thus showed that a secure peace in the world is much more important to him than just an era of détente between him and the Russians. With the quintessentially American impulse of a lay preacher, he proclaimed himself the moral judge of all other states’ domestic affairs; he specifically sorted out those that didn’t want to join the freedom-loving camp of the good guys – and then took care of the global diplomatic ostracism and global political exclusion of those states which his affable successor in office would then only need to call the ‘evil empire’. And the Russians immediately proved to President Carter how right he was: they sent their Red Army into Afghanistan just to subjugate yet another nation that didn’t want to live under their yoke! This called for an unequivocal response from him and the world community, first and foremost a boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow because you don’t fight for medals of national honor with state criminals. But you also don’t do business with them, either in arms diplomacy or in any other way; he did away with SALT-II and introduced a wheat embargo – and lots of money, CIA, and missiles for the fight for freedom in Afghanistan! Of course, the foster father of the Taliban did not know at the time that his commitment to freedom on Russia’s southern border would give his later successors the opportunity to distinguish themselves in the very same matter exactly the other way around. But he certainly knew what world peace needed there and in general: in 1980, he presented his “Carter Doctrine” to Congress – “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force” – and since then, the current head of the White House only has to insert his name before “...-doctrine” to ensure that the USA’s efforts for world peace have been brought up to date. Almost in passing, he made another major contribution to world peace with the Camp David Accords in 1978. Egypt’s Sadat was already half convinced that there was no way around peace with Israel – enmity against Israel, as the lost wars had showed, was not worth it for the Arabs. But he was not yet completely convinced, and this is where the skills of our great peacemaker were needed again: he had to point out that his mighty country would continue to do everything in its power to ensure that Israel could finish founding its state, and that Egypt, if it no longer disturbed Israel’s desire for peace, could also enjoy America’s friendly support. Sadat was then finally convinced and, with his signature, initiated the peace process in the Middle East that still continues today. And then, for the sake of peace, the President set about freeing the American embassy hostages with a very modest – unfortunately, it turned out, all too modest – operation – and despite all his achievements, he could no longer shake off the reproach of having failed. Embittered, he decided to continue serving his country as

a former US President.

Freed from the burdens of day-to-day global politics, which he knew were in good hands with all his successors, he made sure as a private citizen that they were doing everything correctly in their commitment to peace and freedom. As an election observer, he ensured that even in those states in which this is hardly considered possible anymore, they are well governed, that is, by a government that has come about correctly, without too much excessive violence and fraud, and that the people can at least make a living of it, if not much else. He had to pay visits to various trouble spots around the globe, if only because his country was always being directly affected by them. And wherever this was the case, peace was always highly endangered, so J. Carter was very much in demand. For example, in 1994 in Haiti, where he traveled on behalf of his less polite compatriots and informed the island’s ruler of all the good things he could do to “prevent an American invasion.” Or in North Korea in the same year, where he convinced those in power that in order to “avoid war with America” it is better not to insist so stubbornly on possessing nuclear weapons. And actually, always and everywhere, as he made known in his private Jimmy Doctrine: “These little guys who might be building nuclear weapons or violating human rights need someone who will listen to them, understand their problems, and help them communicate.” (FAZ, Oct. 12) He simply believed in the good in the rogues of the rogue states; and above all that if he heard confession from them, they could all be convinced to take the right path. He listened to them in order to then tell them a little bit about the great, powerful country that can’t stand nuclear weapons anywhere else and also dislikes it when the state is run incorrectly. Sooner or later they would understand him – and thus also the types of problems they would get into if they caused any for America. This helped them do better. And because he was always bringing peace to the world from America, which has become so fond of it, and because he continued to do so undaunted even when the current president of his country has to delight the world with another export item in the name of freedom, which is his top priority, he gets his prize: “In today's situation, characterized by the threat of the use of power, Carter has insisted on the principle that conflicts must be resolved to the greatest extent possible through mediation and international cooperation on the basis of international law, respect for human rights and economic development.” (sueddeutsche.de/dpa) The ruling Yanks in the White House create conflicts so that a Yank who is no longer in power can then persistently resolve them with the greatest possible amount of communicative assistance: This always results in a peace that is worth its prize money.