It has always been said the Nobel Prize has a high political content. This year there is no place for doubts. The selection of ex-President Jimmy Carter for the Nobel Peace Price has been a formidable critic to the current president of the U.S. The award, which was made public on the same day congress granted authorization to the government for the use of military force in Iraq, was a direct attack from the members of the Norwegian Academy for the way in which George W Bush is conducting foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East.

And there was nothing subtle in the message. In its communiqué, the committee indicated: “In a situation currently marked by the threat of use of power, Carter has established the principle that conflicts must be resolved through mediation and international cooperation, respect for human rights and economic development.”

In order not to leave doubts about the addressee, the president of the Nobel Prize Committee, Gunnar Berge, textually said: “This award should be interpreted as a critic to the line of action currently adopted by the present U.S. administration and all those who follow the same line.”

Even though Carter declined the opportunity to make comments about Bush’s plans against Iraq, he did throw a blow to his own partners in the Democratic Party by saying that he would not have voted to authorize the use of force. By comparison, how small the current members of congress seem! In a debate in which world peace is at stake, democrats didn’t know how to say NO to the military obsession of president Bush. In spite of the fact that many of them are not convinced that war is the best course of action, they allow themselves to be intimidated and give in under peer pressure from republican colleagues and the fear to be accused of not being patriotic enough. Just at the threshold of a vote in which reelection is at stake!
A columnist of the New York Times synthesized in a sentence what many Americans think about the actions of the democrat leaders in congress: “That is not patriotism, it’s abdication.”

Jimmy Carter has been nominated in several occasions for the Nobel Prize. If the committee in Oslo gave it to him this year it is because it wanted to set an example to be followed by contemporary politicians, particularly those from the world’s first power.

Jimmy Carter has been the only U.S. president who did not send men to war. During his four years as president, and later, in the two decades since he left the job, he has made a fundamental contribution to world peace. His intervention in the peace agreement at Camp David between Egypt and Israel, as well as in other international conflicts in the Middle East and Latin America, in which he participated to safeguard human rights and democracy, make him more than deserving of the prestigious prize.

The courage and commitment Carter has shown in his endeavors in favor of just causes for humanity are even more outstanding in the presence of the spurious interests that dominate the conduct of so many politicians and nation leaders of our times.

Hopefully, President Bush got the message and will pay attention to the claims of thousands of pacifists that in this nation, and in different places all over the world, ask him not to start a war that at this level is perceived not only as insulting to the principles of international rights but also offensive to common sense.