Nobel Peace Prize for Former President George H.W. Bush?
by Robert Morrison
We are approaching the twentieth anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall. That year, 1989, deserves to go down in history with 1648, the end of the Thirty Years’ War in Germany, 1815, the fall of Napoleon, 1914, the outbreak of the Cataclysm we know as World War I, and with 1945, the end of World War II that led to the tragic division of Europe. The Heritage Foundation this week presented an important conference on the Fall of the Wall and its meaning today.
I want to focus on just one portion of that vital conference: the Reunification of Germany.
Ambassador Klaus Scharioth. the urbane and witty diplomat assigned to Washington by the Federal Republic of Germany, paid fulsome tribute to the United States for helping his country achieve reunification. He thanked Americans for the 60 million young servicemen and women who had helped to protect Germany from Soviet aggression for forty-five years. I was stunned to hear that amazing figure. That heroic and generous contribution by America is not something we need to apologize to anyone for.
Ambassador Scharioth also noted how the Hungarians and Czechs helped greatly to bring down the Wall. The liberalizing communist regimes in those countries had opened their gates to East Germans desperate to escape the “Workers’ Paradise” in the Soviet puppet state behind the Iron Curtain. The ambassador recalled the important work of West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who never wavered in his devotion to reuniting his beloved land. Most of all, Ambassador Scharioth credited President George H.W. Bush with steadfast support for bringing down the Wall and peacefully reuniting Germany.
The former President is famously modest, perhaps too modest. As a boy, his dad, Prescott Bush, used to quiz him on his report card. “How are we doing in ‘claims no more?’” The elder Bush, a U.S. Senator from Connecticut, was referring to the portion of his son’s prep school report that gave a high mark to any young lad who “claims no more than his share of attention.” Young George always scored high in “claims no more.”
Consider the world of the 1980s. For some of those years, millions of people in the U.S. and Western Europe really feared that Ronald Reagan would stumble into World War III. They watched films like “The Day After,” a made-for-TV, made-for-terrifying-us-all movie that purported to show the after-effects of a nuclear war in Kansas.
Yes, by 1989, when George H.W. Bush took office as President, the fears of nuclear war had largely abated, thanks to President Reagan’s steady strategy of “peace through strength.” But there were still tensions. The Berlin Wall symbolized those tensions.
It took infinite skill and tremendous presence of mind to manage the end of the East-West confrontation that had been a daily fact of life since 1945. George Bush had that skill, that courage, that much-lampooned “prudence.”
If, in 1988, candidate George Bush had said: “I’d like to preside over the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the peaceful reunification of Germany, her incorporation into NATO as a free and democratic state, and I propose to do all of this without firing a shot, without alienating our allies or breaking relations with the Soviets,” the reaction would have been one of stunned silence. The gray beards and chin strokers of the chattering classes would have pronounced Bush a madman. Alarmed, they would have said: “He’s even worse than Reagan!”
Yet, the magnitude of Bush’s achievement is there. He managed all that so calmly, so prudently, that it seemed the most natural and unavoidable of conclusions.
Britain’s staunch Margaret Thatcher did not want Germany reunified. Francois Mitterrand did not want a new great power to challenge France’s preeminence in Europe. The Soviets did not want it. The Poles did not want it. Even the West German Socialists did not want it.
So, how did it happen? America supported her stalwart ally. President Bush backed up with American resolve Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s yearning for unity. And he did so for the most American of reasons: We had given our word to the Germans and the world for forty years. When the time came to end the division of Germany, the United States would be there. The time came in 1989.
For this, President George H.W. Bush clearly deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. They have been given for far, far lesser achievements. As we celebrate twenty years of peace in the heart of Europe, as we recall that two world wars were fought in the heart of Europe, we can all be grateful to the skillful statecraft, the personal modesty, and the honoring of promises that characterized the brilliant diplomacy of this very American hero.












Nobel Peace Prize for Former President George H.W. Bush?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Never
Personally, I do not think a Nobel Peace Prize should EVER, under ANY circumstances, be awarded to ANY person who has started a war. That's pure hypocrisy. I don't care what he's done before that or since that. Starting a war should be an automatic and always disqualification for this prize. Anything else, is hypocrisy.
We wouldn't give a "humanitarian" award to someone who repeatedly violated people's rights, would we? No. That wouldn't make sense.
We wouldn't give a "freedom" award to someone who once was a dictator, would we? No. That would be ridiculous.
So why the hell would we ever give any kind of "peace" prize to a man who sent people off to kill and die in a war? It makes zero sense.
- ebsarver
October 7, 2009 3:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Amen.
You are exactly correct. Saddam Hussein should not be given, or even nominated, for a Nobel Peace prize. I'm glad you made this point.
This is the senior Bush. This is the one who sent our troops to liberate Kuwait after Hussein invaded the country. He didn't start it, but he damn sure finished it. You don't have a problem with liberating countries invaded by homicidal tyrants do you?
- LagerHead
October 7, 2009 4:20PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
same difference
Anyone who sends troops to die and/or kill should never be up for this award under any circumstances.
In the end, it doesn't matter who started it. What matters is that this bastard sent people to die when he did not have to. He sent people to kill when he did not have to. No such person ever deserves an award for peace. Period.
- ebsarver
October 7, 2009 4:24PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
and let us not forget
That in that war, we used depleted uranium and other detestable tactics. He left a nation in ruins. Nobody who does such things deserves such an award. In fact, he deserves just the opposite - punishment for his crimes against humanity.
- ebsarver
October 7, 2009 4:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wow.
So you're obviously anti-war no matter what the situation, right? I hate to break it to ya, brother, but sometimes a man's gotta do what man's gotta do. And if that means putting the smack down on a piece of crap mass-murdering dictator, then hell yea, give that man a prize.
Peace can be kept, or peace can be made. And if it needs making, it ain't gonna make itself.
I can tell you this. He's a hell of a lot more deserving than that piece of crap Al Gore.
- LagerHead
October 7, 2009 4:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Muderers don't deserve peace prizes, no matter their "reason"
Yes, sometimes a man has to do what a man has to do.
Such a man NEVER deserves an award for PEACE.
Ever.
Period.
That's my point. You can't just wash clean the tens of thousands of deaths this man ordered because he helped Germany reunite. It does not work that way.
And I would add that there is an assumption on your part that the war with Iraq was a "war of necessity." I see no such evidence. In fact, here's what I see.
I see that one of our foreign policy people, under the leadership of Bush, gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait. I see that Bush used that as an excuse to attack Iraq before proper measures had been taken and given time to work as alternatives to war. Is see that once the war against Iraq had begun, Bush chose to use tactics that resulted in tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. I see that the pretext was a lie, that the prosecution of the war was brutal, and that he left Iraq in shambles.
Those are not the resume of a man deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize, no matter how you slice up the rest of his career with a fancy editing job and nice words. Period. End of story.
Your defense of this man shows you to be...well...similar to him.
And no, Gore didn't deserve the award either. Nor has any president or vice president to serve since WWII. They're all crooks, liars and murderers. Giving them awards for peace is utter nonsense.
- ebsarver
October 7, 2009 5:03PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm laughing so hard at you.
So now I am a murderer too? Great response, Mr. Reasonable.
For your next trick, can you please demonstrate how the younger Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, and how Clinton committed murder , and identify the man on the grassy knoll?
There are probably at least 50 million people around the world right now who are glad that there are people with balls big enough to do what has to be done. And if that doesn't deserve a prize, I don't know what does.
- LagerHead
October 7, 2009 5:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Do you support Obama's winning?
In light of your statement, "So why the hell would we ever give any kind of "peace" prize to a man who sent people off to kill and die in a war? It makes zero sense.", do you support the decision that Obama deserves the award?
- SolarSanitizer
October 9, 2009 12:00PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Obama? Hell no.
This is the comment I posted to my Facebook profile about the choice of Obama: "Hell NO! What the hell for? The Nobel Peace Prize is a fracking joke. The list is filled with mass murderers. Utter BS. One murder should automatically disqualify a person. Tens of thousands? Give me a fracking break."
- ebsarver
October 9, 2009 2:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just Exactly Who is The Family Research Council?
I just made a long call to the Family Research Council in Washington DC, I was interested in possibly supporting them, I agree on many of the positions they claim to represent. I am setting here very disappointed, to use mild comparisons they appear to be modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. For you non Christians they may be people who have hidden motives and are not who they claim to be. It is impossible to determine who or where there funding comes from. For all we know they could be funded by interests in China who wish to have much more control over the USA. The Fact is we just don’t know who the money comes from or if they have hidden motives. Do any of you know exactly who there money comes from? Please don’t use the Evangelical Council as a resource to find more on this subject, you will get only general meaningless data from them. How about it Family Research Council, give us a list of your top twenty contributors and there amounts.
- Super Expert
October 21, 2009 2:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sounds like he deserves it.
As we celebrate twenty years of peace in the heart of Europe, as we recall that two world wars were fought in the heart of Europe, we can all be grateful to the skillful statecraft, the personal modesty, and the honoring of promises that characterized the brilliant diplomacy of this very American hero."
Well said.
- SolarSanitizer
October 7, 2009 5:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Moot point now
Well, President Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, essentially making it a completely worthless and meaningless prize. Not only that, it is an insult to the memory of recipients who actually did something, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
What a joke.
- LagerHead
October 9, 2009 9:12AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's take a look at the list...
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates /
The number of people on this list who are directly or indirectly (by giving the orders) responsible for tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of armed combatants...makes the award completely meaningless. There are many killers on the list. It has been rendered meaningless by choices such as Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, F.W. De Klerk, UN Peacekeeping Forces, Jimmy Carter and now Barack Obama. These are just a few examples, and these are all killers. I don't care how much peace they made. They also killed massive numbers of people. The don't deserve to be honored for the former with the stain of the latter on their hands.
- ebsarver
October 9, 2009 3:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.