Who should get this year's Nobel Peace Prize?

However, the world peace-market is already agog with a heavy and long list of some 178 candidates, so far proposed by different groups and agencies for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, this being the largest list of candidates in the history of this prestigious annual award. The list includes the world's must leading figures, including US President Bush, British PM Blair, French President Chirac, Pope John Paul. Among these aspirants, names of Bush and Blair, and I would like to add Israel's PM Sharon's name to make it a 'trio' outshining the rest of the candidates at least for this year's peace award.

In order to understand and justify the acceptability of the peace 'axis of the trio', namely, Bush-Blair-Sharon, as the most formidable candidates, we can have a glimpse, in brief, into their peace activities, particularly during the last two years. The history of last two years is lying open before everybody with their irrefutable track-record in their peace mission, overcoming the heavy odds and obstacles created by some world leaders, lacking foresight.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The universal truth is that the events, good or bad, that lead to the making of history, take their shape according to the interpretation made from different angles. From one angle or viewpoint, what is presented as angelic, may be painted as devilish from another angle. Hence the victorious are always landed as heroes, while the vanquished lies down as a rogue waiting for inevitable punishment. As they say, even the devil is not so black as he is painted. The devil has its own glamour, surrounded by sincere devil-worshippers. Similarly, US President Bush, British PM Blair and Israeli PM Sharon are not as bad as they are projected by some because all the three are working for establishing peace in the world by cleansing the devilish elements from peace roadmap.

"America Unbound": Bush's foreign policy for peace
In a recent review of a new publication, titled, "America Unbound", published in an Western weekly, the reviewer had presented president Bush as a thorough-bread statesman and diplomatic, giving a new turn to US foreign policy to fit in the fast-changing world scenario. The bottom line of the review is that president Bush is not an ordinary fellow who rose from a "callow" man to the position of a governor of one of the states of America, then within a few years made a successful entry into the US presidency. Therefore, he is not just a 'bone-headed', man with less brain and more brawn. He is a perfect politician, knowing well where to put his hands and mouth at right time. By doing so, Bush might have turned US foreign policy upside down but that radical change was needed to ensure that this good old Earth of God once again become a 'paradise on earth', with peace, security and prosperity reigning supreme. That is why Bush, along with his closest ally Blair, put his hands on the neck of that greatest of the great devil Saddam, catching him red-handed -- while he was getting ready to 'violate' the world peace, with his massive collection of WMD. Undoubtedly, Bush had to swallow many unpalatable and uncharitable remarks from vested questions for his noble mission. But he faced boldly the opposition posed by anti-war groups and leaders. Perhaps the anti-war forces against Bush lacked the foresight about the most powerful long-lasting impact of freeing the world's second-largest oil wealth in Iraq from the clutches of an intransigent dictator Saddam who was a perfect 'blue-eyed boy' of America during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. They failed to catch the theme of Bush mission in Iraq that it would bring a two-pronged result : First, it would clip the wings of an uncooperative over-ambitious Arab dictator and cut him to size, putting up a hard lesson for other Arab leaders. Secondly, it would add further strength to Israel, who has been long working as a 'security guard' of America in the Middle East, to play a more gleeful role in establishing complete peace in the region.

Bush and honey-seeking bees
Now that the much-desired peace has come to stay in Iraq after the turmoil, following the great fall of Saddam, though there are still some 'rowdy elements' around, to mock the great sacrifices made by the US forces, both in money and lives, preparations are now afoot for handing over the full control of the authority to the people through holding a country-wide general election within a year or so, as predicted by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's representative after a week-long tour of Iraq, to give the most-wanted 'UN-touch' to the US stand of unavoidable delay in clearing the debris to hold the election. At this crucial stage when America wants other world leaders, who had opposed US-war on Iraq, to share the 'whiteman's burden', they seem to have realised their mistake and are now eager to extend their hands of cooperation to share with America the juicy fruits of peace in Iraq, by taking part in Iraq's reconstruction programme. Peace, soaked with honey, seems to be attracting more 'bees' then expected to the last laugh of the White House. Money not only talks, but it can also buy peace. It all depends on how you use it. After all, honey always attracts more bees than vinegar. President Bush, as a peace-lover, knows it well and he also knows how to net the honey-loving bees. Bush, as a successful peace-strategist, wants to enjoy honey-moon with the 'bees' gathered in one honey-comb.

A 'lie' and truth: Twins?
There are still many who accuse both Bush and Blair of telling blatant lies not only to their own peoples but

also to the peoples of the world. But they forget one thing. There is a missing link, between a 'lie' and a 'truth.' A lie and truth always go together like unseparated twins, having rather an embryonic link. One cannot live without the other. They can make history and they can mar history at the same time. That is why history is often full of 'true lies' or 'lying truth'. Had there been no 'lie', nobody could realise what 'truth' is. It is the darkness that makes the light more dazzling when it goes behind the screen. Exception proves the rule. Hence if Bush and Blair had lied in the greater interest of truth, they can't be blamed.

It is argued that during the last one year or so, since the fall of that 'Thief of Baghdad,' neither the UN weapons inspectors, nor over one thousand American weapons experts, who had literally ploughed through the soil of Iraq from one end to the other, including Saddam's 'Rat hole,' couldn't trace a single WMD. So what? Whether any WMD is found or not, matters little. Using the WMD phobia as a strong shield, the objective has been achieved in establishing a 'highway to pace' with change of an evil regime. The end always justifies the means. As they say, in love and war everything is fair. Therefore, those who had shown the courage and conviction to turn the table in favour of establishing peace must be given their due credit, whether the goal has been reached by hook or crook.

Indo-Pak peace dialogue: Bush's big success
To get more proof about the honest intention of America, and for that matter of Bush, just have a cursory look at the sub-continent where the two nuke rivals, India and Pakistan, had at last agreed on a basic roadmap aimed at solving all of their problems, including Kashmir, that had been a bone of contention for the last five decades. It was a miracle that the two countries which had fought two wars and a third one was averted due to the timely diplomatic intervention by America. There was a sigh of relief all around due to this unexpected development. And the credit for this latest U-turn by two arch-rivals to agree to go for a "composite dialogue," on all issues, including Kashmir, goes undoubtedly to Bush for his behind the scene but active and most fruitful role -- to bring about lasting peace in this region. Nobody can deny that President Bush had hit the right chord at the right time and at the right place. It won't be at all surprising if America allows both India and Pakistan to be on their respective nuclear tracks, but under the watchful eyes of America. Undoubtedly, this would nicely juxtapose with the US strategy to ensure peace in the whole of South Asian region.

From this brief analysis we can conclude that 'all roads lead to Rome'. Hence the recommendation already made by some groups or agencies that this year's Noble Prize for Peace should be awarded to Bush and Blair deserves utmost attention of the Peace Award Committee. However, the third name of Israeli PM Sharon should be added to the names of Bush and Blair, to make it a strong 'trio' for the Peace Prize. Thus the dream for world peace for the trio would come true and the peoples of the world would celebrate the day as a great victory for the champions of peace.

AMM Shahabuddin is a retired UN official