The Sydney (ap)Peace(ment) Prize

New York Times: "No Illicit Arms Found in Iraq, US Inspector Tells Congress"

Washington Post: "Search in Iraq Finds No Banned Weapons"

BBC: "US team finds no Iraq WMD"

Most commentary ignored that Dr Kay's report validated the very reason for interfering in Iraq’s internal affairs: the regime was ignoring its UN obligations. Dr Kay justified the Coalition effort to oust Saddam by chronicling a litany of Iraqi violations and demonstrated that Saddam never had any intention of complying with the UN demands.

Early in October 2003, Dr Kay testified to a United States Congressional Committee on the activities of the Iraq Survey Group’s investigation into Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs. Dr Kay noted that while Saddam was required to verifiably disarm, the tyrant chose to deceive and was committed to rebuild his WMD capacity.

In March 2003, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Dr David Kelly, the respected British arms inspector, wrote that "the long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert". Dr David Kay’s testimony demonstrated that Dr Kelly was right.

It was such warnings that stirred George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard to action.

But six months later things changed. Dr Blix’s behaviour became somewhat erratic.

On 18 February, 2004, a month before the anniversary of the liberation of Iraq, Dr Blix popped up on the international scene enthusiastically spruiking his book, Disarming Iraq, and comprehensively castigated the British and American governments over Iraq's WMDs. He crowed that they had exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam.

But barely a year earlier, Dr Blix’s own statements justified the war to liberate Iraq. So was Blix lying to the international community in 2004 or did he lie in 2003? On February 26 this year, Dr Blix claimed that the West’s neo-colonial" approach in dealing with Iran is "humiliating and unfruitful" and Tehran should be given reasonable incentives to halt its nuclear program.

When pressed he elaborated: "One feature, which is now key and peculiarly not very much debated ... is the demand - first of the Europeans and then of the US … - that first Iran must suspend enrichment. This is, in a way, like telling a child, 'now first you behave and thereafter you'll be given your rewards'. And this I think is humiliating." Blix warned that the West's "insolence" would only lead to more intransigence.

Pity that history is replete with evidence that appeasement does not work and that the outstretched arm of courageous democratic nations is the only thing that ensures peace and allows prosperity to flourish. Just scan Winston Churchill's and Harry S Truman’s resumes if you don’t believe me. Or better yet, listen to General George S Patton define why we must not yield in the War on Terror, by railing against the appeasement that was rife in Europe and regrettably has not been totally eradicated.

The sad facts are that Dr Blix failed in his duties in Iraq and the Peace Prize menagerie has failed in its selection process.

When all is said and done it’s clear that Dr Blix has not learned a damn thing in the last 20 years. To this day he has not come to grips with just how deep is the well of Islamic hate. The most generous that can be said of Dr Blix is that as a weapons inspector, he proved to be the wrong man for the wrong job.

And as for the poor judgment exhibited by the Sydney Peace Prize judges, the less said the better.