According to a Stanford University School of Medicine study, 1.2 million people (mostly in Africa) are alive who would have otherwise not been as a direct result of The President's Emergency Relief Plan for AIDS Relief.
Later this week, President Obama will travel to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. For what exactly we are still trying to figure out. Quite frankly, the Nobel Committee is recognizing the wrong President. They should have bestowed the prize on his predecessor, George W. Bush.
At this moment, American liberals and European socialists are dropping their champagne glasses simultaneously. Some will laugh derisively while others will hiss in disgust. After all, there is every reason to believe Obama won the prize precisely because he isn't Bush.
Now the Nobel Committee will tell you that they chose Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."1 So how exactly has President Obama strengthened international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples? And how did he make those extraordinary efforts in the first twelve days of his administration? You see, whoever nominated Obama had to do so by February 1, 2009.
So I am quite serious when I say that Bush is more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Obama. I think Bush is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize not because of Afghanistan or Iraq (although I do think Afghanistan and Iraq are ultimately better off without al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, respectively). I believe Bush is more deserving because he initiated the largest foreign aid humanitarian effort ever undertaken by a single country.
During his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush launched The President's Emergency Relief Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).2 He asked Congress to commit $15 billion over five years to this program. One of PEPFAR's objectives is to provide people infected with HIV/AIDS access to antiretroviral drugs. According to a study released by Stanford University School of Medicine in April 2009, 1.2 million people (mostly in Africa) are alive who would have otherwise not been as a direct result of PEPFAR. The authors of the study, Dr. Eran Bendavid and Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, wrote in The Annals of Internal Medicine:
By the end of 2007, PEPFAR spent more than $6 billion on HIV care, prevention, and treatment in the 12 focus countries examined in this study. In those countries, a reduction in the death rate of 10.5% implies that about 1.2 million deaths were averted because of PEPFAR's activities.3
Prior to the release of this study, even Obama himself acknowledged the success of PEPFAR and Bush's role in it. Before taking office, in a videotaped address to the Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health hosted by Pastor Rick Warren in December 2008, Obama said, "I salute President Bush for his leadership in crafting a plan for AIDS relief in Africa and backing it up with funding dedicated to saving lives and preventing the spread of the disease."4 On the other hand, it is well worth noting, there is no acknowledgment of President Bush's role on the U.S. government's official PEPFAR website.5
The policies of President Obama haven't saved a single life. Yet this Bush policy saved over a million lives and it barely registers a flutter. If Bill Clinton had undertaken an effort that resulted in saving the lives of over a million people afflicted with HIV/AIDS, don't you think the Nobel Committee would have given him his due?
This isn't to say that Obama won't accomplish something during his Presidency that would warrant a Nobel Prize. I am sure the Nobel Committee would be happy to bestow upon him another Nobel if his military strategy in Afghanistan brings about a peaceful resolution to that conflict. Yet one cannot help but think the Nobel Committee would give him another Nobel for bowling.
It is reasonable to assume that George W. Bush didn't initiate PEPFAR to get international recognition much less attain the good graces of the liberal media. After all, there is a very long way to go in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa especially where it concerns prevention. At the risk of sounding cliche, Bush's efforts with regard to PEPFAR are only the beginning. Yet Bush surely deserves and merits acknowledgment for getting this program off the ground and up and running.
Members of national assemblies or governments may nominate George W. Bush for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize between now and February 1, 2010. It would be fitting if the nomination was submitted jointly by a member of Congress and a parliamentarian or government official from one of the countries that has benefited from PEPFAR. If the Nobel Peace Prize is to still mean anything then Bush ought to be nominated for it regardless of the likelihood there will be a dinner held in his honor next December in Oslo.
Endnotes
1. http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2009
2. http://www.cspan.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current&code=bush_admin&year=2003
3. http://www.annals.org/content/150/10/688.full
4. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/01/obama-again-praises-bushs-aids-relief-efforts/
5. http://www.pepfar.gov/about/index.htm
The $15 billion that Bush appropriated to fight AIDS in Africa came from, (or will come from) us.
Probably no one cares what I think, especially since I do meet the qualifications for nominating a candidate. But I think if one believes that Obama's health plan intends to mis-use his hard earned money, then one also feels that the credit for Bush's Africa AIDS effort goes to the American taxpayers. The committee has the option to give the Peace prize to a group.
"Yet one cannot help but think the Nobel Committee would give him another Nobel for bowling."
Yes, one can.
[...] clipped from http://www.intellectualconservative.com [...]
PEPFAR may have entitled Bush to a Nobel Prize as much as the next humanitarian, but it should equally have gotten him thrown out of office for misappropriating taxpayer funds in an extra-constitutional show of international charity. Thanks again, President Bush, for continuing a tradition of social liberalism in order to save conservatism from itself.
Actually curing Africans of AIDS doesn't promote peace although it abates suffering and premature death.
And although the committee asks for nominations from qualified persons/groups, they still give the award to whomever they please. If an American committee gave a peace prize, the Norwegians could say whatever they want to about it.
>Actually curing Africans of AIDS doesn't promote peace …
Neither does caring for the poor. But in 1979 the Nobel Peace prize was given to Mother Teresa, who fortunately was neither a registered Republican nor George Bush, so it wasn't an issue.
If what Mr. Mulligan says in #3 is right, then the Nobel Prize to President Bush is a negative distinction, since he will have earned it by redistributing our wealth.
Then a Bush supporter might be glad that he is not likely to win it, and glad that Pres. Obama has, correct?