Surprise Surprise

The UN was honored again, surprise surprise. This time for 'great work' by the AIEA in stopping Nukes from being used for anything but peace.

The following originally appeared in The Picket, Shepherd University's newspaper which, as I pointed out last week, has asked for a bi-weekly submission. This was the first 'Vent-Pipe' associated column to be published...enjoy

Perhaps it’s my ‘Protestant work-ethic’ centered upbringing, or the fact that I was raised in the capitalist society which runs almost exclusively on this work ethic, but I was always taught that hard work and dedication are important. More important still, though, is having something to show for this work and dedication; working all day doesn’t mean much if nothing was accomplished. It is only when results are reached that rewards are reaped.

Recently, however, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads an agency which has accomplished little. The International Atomic Energy Agency, whose parent organization, the United Nations, has accomplished even less in the last, oh, fifty years, was awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for, as quoted by the Nobel website, “their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.”

This, as noted by the IAEA’s website, is the eighth time the UN, or a partner organization, has been awarded the price, and sends the message to, “keep doing what you’re doing, be impartial, [and] act with integrity.”

I find this to be ludicrous. What about results? What about nukes in Pakistan, India and Iran? What about the fact that it was George W. Bush’s persistent call for six-party talks that seems to have initiated, if not inspired, a possible North Korean disarmament? What about the fact that it was the use of force (rather than the repeated threat of use of force which we heard from the UN) that pushed Libya to begin acting like a some-what civil nation, rather than a band of hoodlums like nearby Syria or the pre-invasion Baathist government in Iraq? And, beyond that, what is this talk of “striving to be impartial?” It is (arguably?) not the Canadians that we (the international community) need to worry about nuking their neighbors. It is rogue nations, particularly the ones outlined by Bush a few years ago, who are always causing the trouble. Impartiality—good grief!

The Nobel Peace Prize has been on a downward spiral since it awarded the prize to ever useless former President Jimmy Carter not long ago, but giving the IAEA, whose attempts, while perhaps noble in intent, have brought no results, is just unacceptable! It seems logical to me that the prize should be awarded to an individual or agency which has made some measurable and/or visual progress in achieving peace, not a group or individual who simply wants peace. If the only requirement to win the award is that we want peace, rather than achieve results which bring us another step closer to peace, I should have received my award years ago.

Here’s hoping that next year the organization awards the Peace Prize to somebody who deserves it…unless, of course, it’s too late to go ahead and give Saddam his go-round with the Prize.

The Picket ran an article this week about the University's Liberal Women's Program. I will rant on that by the end of the week.