EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo
Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone
Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega
Staff Representatives
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
 Kelly Rayburn
Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors. Â Â All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases. Â Â The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes. Â Â When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898
Alfred Nobel must have turned in his grave when President
Bush’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize was confirmed
Monday. Harald Tom Nesvik, a member of Norway’s parliament,
nominated both Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair for the
award, supporting his endorsement by citing Bush’s work
against terrorism and his advocating world peace after the Sept. 11
attacks.
While there is no arguing Bush has been a leader in the war
against terrorism, this alone does not make a Nobel prize winner.
Nobel’s will states the winner of the annual prize
“shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind”
or “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity
between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies
and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Bush has fallen short in meeting these expectations on several
counts.
He did attempt to “work for fraternity” after the
Sept. 11 attacks by establishing coalitions with other nations in
hope of carrying out a successful retaliation against terrorists.
But as the war has dragged on, Bush’s leadership has become
more questionable. During his State of the Union address, for
example, he referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an
“axis of evil” and intimated that the War on Terrorism
should be carried to these nations. The problem is other nations,
including Russia, all of NATO and various Arab states, don’t
believe the military effort should extend beyond Afghanistan. As
far as they are concerned, Bush can go at it alone ““ so much
for “fraternity.”
To his credit, Bush has worked toward “the abolition or
reduction of standing armies.” His bombing campaign over
Afghanistan has effectively dismantled the Taliban regime and its
forces ““ granting Bush a Nobel prize on these grounds,
though, sending a wrong message. Setting a precedent justifying the
use of violence in order to achieve “peace” completely
disregards the sense of idealism the prize has rewarded in the
past. The goal of a leader in trying to achieve peace should be to
do so in a manner that doesn’t further disrupt human lives,
as Bush’s War on Terrorism has done to countless of innocent
Afghan civilians. Nominating Bush because of his specific approach
to the war on terrorism after Sept. 11, would advocate finding
“peace”in the easiest, fastest and most self-serving
way ““ not necessarily the right way.
Retaliating against al-Qaeda and the Taliban for their actions
on Sept. 11 is one thing, but carrying out a full-fledged crusade
against other nations without first fully exploiting the utility of
international coalitions and organizations ““ not just once,
but as many times as possible ““ does not resonate with the
concept of promoting peace worldwide.
But Bush is spending money on it anyway.
On Monday, President Bush sent Congress a $2.1-trillion budget,
fashioning the largest increase in military spending in two
decades. The budget allocates a $550 billion increase in defense
spending over the next 10 years ““ all for the sake of
“the War on Terrorism.” If Bush is truly concerned
about enhancing world peace, he might consider using some of his
bomb-money to work on establishing economic stability in the
countries he pillages. Afghanistan’s total gross domestic
product in 2000 was only $21 billion ““ less than 4 percent of
Bush’s defense increase alone. If Bush really wants to root
out the seeds of evil, perhaps he should do so by making
Afghanistan an economically viable country ““ rather than one
where citizens can be easily convinced into hating the United
States because of their economic hardships. Only when Bush does
this will he “have conferred the greatest benefit on
mankind.”