Two of the architects of the Iraq War, US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, are among the nominees for the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize. 

After sending thousands of soldiers to war in Iraq and failing to find weapons of mass destruction, the major excuse to start the war, Bush and Blair have been put forward to receive the prestigious award.

They were nominated by Jan Simonsen, an independent member of Norway's parliament who says even though illicit weapons have not been found, the pair got rid of a dictator and made the world safer.

"Bush and Blair definitely still deserve it," Simonsen said.

Let it never be said by future generations that indifference made us fail to live up to the ideals which the Nobel Peace Prize represents.

Above all, the significance of the award underlines the world's support for peace and people's rights.

But there are still some who believe they can make a contribution to the cause of justice and peace by clinging to shibboleths that have proved to spell nothing but disaster.

Despite the removal of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the world is by no means safer. Rather, the future of the Middle East country remains uncertain. The ousting of Saddam has not diminished the ever-escalating deadly attacks on US troops and their allies in Iraq, nor brought an end to the violence-plagued occupation of the war-shattered country.

Removing Saddam in no way ensures a solution to the challenges of reconstructing Iraq: creating jobs, restoring electricity, repairing the oil industry, and most critically, settling the rivalries and disputes between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

Worse, if Bush and Blair are seriously considered for the honor, it will mark the dawn of a very new world in which no excuse is necessary for the powerful to bully the weak.

The US-led invasion of Iraq, from the moment the first bomb was dropped, set a precedent that a powerful nation can wage war against another sovereign state on little more than a whim.

What makes most sovereign states shudder is that it now appears political and economic clout has replaced international law as justification for instigating conflicts.

As a litmus test of the Bush doctrine of unilateralism in the Middle East, the Iraq War has only further whet the appetite for adventurism in the world's lone superpower.

It ripped the basic rules of international relations formed after World War II and shattered the existing international system while blatantly challenging the authority and credibility of the United Nations.

It is not too much to ask Bush and Blair to put an end to their fantasies, speculations and misrepresentations.

The two leaders have so far made no excuses for the chaotic post-war conditions in Iraq or their failure to find any weapons of mass destruction.

Rather, they've suggested the world might again need to act preemptively to thwart attacks by terrorists equipped with unconventional weapons.

Pre-emptive tactics are not the answer to terrorism.

The outcome of such actions has turned out to run counter to the original wishes of the advocates. Bush and Blair have won the war, but not the peace.

Nations delude themselves if they think military force alone can defeat terrorism. The doctrine of pre-emptive action represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for more than five decades.

(China Daily March 9, 2004)