Why Ronald Reagan does NOT deserve a Nobel Peace Prize

This morning it was announced that President Obama is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. I was as shocked as anyone, and even as an Obama supporter I don’t believe he deserves the award yet. Criticism of the decision was expected and, for once, I think warranted. Obama hasn’t done near enough to deserve the award, although I suspect he may in the future. I think this award just shows you just how bad Bush 43 was; going back to neutral gets you a Nobel Prize. The most surprising thing I hear coming from the news lines however is the sudden increase in support of Ronald Reagan for the Nobel Peace Prize. Many conservatives are starting to say that the Nobel committee is swayed way far to the left because they’ve given the prize to Carter, Wilson, Gore, and now Obama, without giving it to any recent conservative presidents. People like Rush Limbaugh have said that Reagan liberated “hundreds of millions of Europeans and (saved) parts of Latin America.” Today a White House correspondent (whose name eludes me) pounded Robert Gibbs about the reason that a conservative like Reagan hasn’t gotten the award. All of this praise of Reagan absolutely befuddles me. Reagan has done more to promote war than any president in recent history (other than perhaps W). The man sold weapons to terrorists in Iran. He then took the money from those sales and gave it to right-wing Contras in Nicaragua, fueling a civil war that killed almost 50,000 people. Does that sound peaceful to you? The International Court of Justice even ruled that we violated human rights and committed acts of war, and we were to immediately pay billions of dollars in reparations to Nicaragua (of course the US vetoed the decision so no actions were taken). Throughout every single Central American country (except Costa Rica and Belize, the only stable countries in the area) Reagan supported either right-wing insurgencies against left-wing governments or the elimination of liberal insurgencies against conservative governments. This included sending the CIA to Central America to train right-wing soldiers, many of whom ended up committing countless massacres as part of “death squads”. Reagan’s exploits in Latin America alone would be enough to eliminate him from any chance at winning a Nobel Prize, but he didn’t stop there. Reagan supported the apartheid government of South Africa for the sole reason that it was a “key anti-communist ally”. Under his administration, Reagan abandoned the relatively successful policy of detente and implemented the “Reagan Doctrine,” a plan to provide overt and covert aid to right-wing guerrillas and insurgencies, in essence supporting conflict, the exact opposite of what a Nobel Peace Prize candidate should strive for. He gave support to Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Islamic mujaheddin guerrillas in Afghanistan, including a young Saudi man named Osama bin Laden (does the term “blowback” come to mind). Many supporters of Reagan claim that his policies destroyed the Soviet Union and ended communism in Eastern Europe, but most historians believe that even if containment quickened their demise, the Soviet economy was failing on its own. The one thing I give Reagan credit for his reduction of nuclear weapons. He was highly against JFK’s idea of mutually assured destruction and believed it was a danger to the world. I entirely agree with him on that point and I give him all the credit in the world for it, but is that enough for a Nobel Peace Prize? I think not. In the end, he’s done far more to harm the people in this world than help them. Just because Obama may have unfairly received the award, doesn’t mean that someone like Reagan should be next in line to get it. After all, two wrongs don’t make a right, and those on the right almost always do things wrong.