OILING THE NOBEL PROCESS Two weeks ago: The Norwegian Nobel Committee awards the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize to former president Jimmy Carter–a move the committee’s chairman, Gunnar Berge, says “should be interpreted” as a “kick in the leg” to current President George W. Bush’s “belligerent” foreign policy. Carter’s Nobel citation reads: “In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international co-operation based on international law, respect for human rights, and economic development.” Last week: The United States announces that North Korea has acknowledged systematic violations of a Jimmy Carter-brokered 1994 pact by which that country was to have halted its nuclear weapons program in return for generous U.S. and South Korean economic assistance. American officials say North Korea may already have produced, under cover of that agreement, a workable, deliverable atomic bomb or two, a development that gravely threatens regional stability and security. Put more bluntly: It now appears that an unprecedented nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula has been facilitated, not averted, by Carter’s 1994 “peace” negotiations. The foregoing paragraphs, THE SCRAPBOOK says, “should be interpreted” as a “kick in the leg” to the Norwegian Nobel Committee generally. And the paragraphs that follow “might be considered” an additional “poke in the eye” to committee chairman Gunnar Berge individually. We note that Norway–surprise!–is the world’s third largest oil exporter. We note that Norway’s non-oil economy slipped into recession in the second quarter of this year. We note that the Norwegian government forecasts rising unemployment and only modest total GDP growth from now through the end of 2004. We note that even these not-especially-cheerful forecasts depend for their fulfillment on world oil prices remaining at current levels. We further note that an American-led “regime change” and subsequent reconstruction of Iraq would inevitably and significantly transform the current global petroleum market: In a post-Saddam Iraq, the United States (and our genuine allies) would surely help modernize that country’s oil fields and exploration capabilities. We note, in other words, that President George W. Bush’s “belligerent” foreign policy promises sharply to boost future Iraqi oil production, which will depress world oil prices, which will leave the Norwegian economy . . . well, totally screwed. And we note, finally, that the director general of his government’s policy-making Norwegian Petroleum Directorate is none other than Nobel Peace Prize committee chairman, and Bush critic, Gunnar Berge. Kinda puts the phrase “oil for peace” in a whole ‘nother light, doesn’t it? LANDSLIDE SADDAM Almost since the inception of this magazine, we have advocated, loudly and lustily, regime change in Iraq. This is not because we are a bunch of power-mad imperialists, though we are. It is because we genuinely believe that the time has come for the Iraqi people to enjoy the same freedoms Western people do–freedoms of association and of speech, the freedom to eat fast food, drive fast cars, and to not get beheaded for telling Saddam jokes. We have always believed this is what the Iraqi people want as well. But, boy, are we embarrassed. Iraq held an election this week, and it turns out that the Iraqi people think the Butcher of Baghdad is just the bee’s knees. With almost 100 percent voter turnout, Saddam Hussein, who was running unopposed, won the election 11,445,638 to 0. No muss, no fuss, no hanging chads, no Frank Lautenberg interventions, no libertarian write-ins. We can’t say for sure what put him over the edge. After all, Saddam isn’t much of a retail campaigner–he hasn’t been seen in public since December 2000. Maybe it was the campaign’s catchphrase, “Yes, yes, yes,” which seemed to be pinched from Herbal Essence shampoo ads. Or maybe, as the Washington Post reported, it was on the strength of his campaign song: the Whitney Houston/Dolly Parton opus, “I Will Always Love You.” Of course, anyone with the slightest worldly wisdom–and by that, we mean, anyone who doesn’t work for Reuters–would suspect that unanimous voter turnout might have come from a permutation of MTV’s Choose or Lose campaign: “Choose Saddam, or Lose Your Life.” Comb the Amnesty International files, and it becomes apparent that political opposition does not fare well in Iraq. Over the years, political opponents have been held without trial, beaten, raped, executed, had electric shocks applied to their genitals, had their skin burned by heated metal or sulfuric acid, or been suspended from rotating fans (talk about your swing voter!). Last July, two men actually had their tongues cut out for “slandering” the Iraqi president. And yet still, Reuters breathlessly reported, “Defiant Iraqis lined up to show their support for Saddam Hussein Tuesday.” One woman even marked her “yes” for Saddam in blood (it’s not clear who was drawing the blood). And voter Mohammad Khalil said, “I voted a big ‘yes’ to Saddam and a big ‘no’ to Bush.” Of course, a “no” for Bush wasn’t a possibility on the Iraqi ballot. Call us conspiratorial, but maybe Mohammad was sending a covert signal: pretending that he was rejecting liberty, but actually communicating that he wants asylum in Palm Beach County. FAITH NO MORE? A senator’s word is supposed to be his bond, but that doesn’t seem to be the case with Senate majority leader Tom Daschle’s handling of President Bush’s faith-based initiative. As early as July 2001, Daschle committed himself to scheduling a debate and vote on the issue. “It would mean in this Congress, which means this year or next year,” Daschle said on “Meet the Press.” “I don’t want to be tied to a specific time frame, but I clearly will give the president his opportunity, his day in court, and we’ll have that debate.” Or maybe not. The measure, known as the CARE Act, cleared the House last year. But its chances in the Senate were poor because of a provision involving the overriding of state and local gay rights statutes. So that provision was taken out. And Daschle, in an op-ed in the Rapid City Journal last February 15, expressed his strong support. “The CARE Act,” he wrote, “strikes the right balance between harnessing the best forces of faith in our public life without infringing on the First Amendment. . . . I look forward to working with President Bush to get this proposal signed into law.” This fall, however, things began to change. A tentative plan was reached to call the measure up in the Senate and allow each party to propose one amendment. Then, suddenly, Democrats demanded four amendments, ones that would actually roll back current law to boost gay rights. For instance, religious organizations that took public funds would not be able to hire and promote on the basis of religion. Nor could any state or local laws be preempted. In other words, organizations that regard homosexual activity as sinful couldn’t legally decline to hire a gay activist. When Republican and Democratic sponsors found enough votes to defeat the four amendments, a new hurdle was put in their way. Daschle required Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the chief Democratic sponsor of the CARE Act, to come up with a list of 10 Democrats committed to vote against the amendments. This isn’t easy, since Democrats are leery of angering gay and civil rights groups on an issue that may never come to the floor for a vote. Still, no 10 commitments, no vote. Lieberman believes he can muster the 10, but by the end of last week he hadn’t. So the measure may not come to a vote in this Senate session. That’s exactly the outcome Daschle promised wouldn’t happen.
