I narrowly avoided spilling tea all over my keyboard this morning when I read that this year’s Nobel ‘Peace’ Prize has been awarded to international ‘chemical weapons watchdog’, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Forgive my cynicism, but after Warmonger-in-Chief Obama was awarded the gong in 2009, and the duplicitous EU last year, it seems pretty clear to me that the selection of this year’s winner is once again a political statement in favour of war-making.
Neither Syria nor the OPCW’s work with UN inspectors in Syria is mentioned in the Nobel Committee’s press release. In fact, the U.S. and Russia are singled out for their failure to comply with treaty obligations. Rest assured, however, that CNN and the rest of the lamestream media is making hay out of this to refocus international attention on the U.S.-led agenda for shock and awe in Syria:
Fri October 11, 2013
The Nobel Peace Prize has turned the global spotlight back on the conflict in Syria.
The prize committee in Oslo, Norway, awarded it Friday to the international chemical weapons watchdog helping to eliminate the Syrian army’s stockpiles of poison gas, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
Its inspectors have just begun with that work in the active war zone, and the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded them the prize in support of the arduous and life-threatening task that lies ahead of them.
If the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to those working for peace and against war, then surely this year’s award should have gone to Vladimir Putin and the Russian government? It was only thanks to a Russian diplomatic initiative, which proposed persuading Syria to give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the U.S. backing off plans to bomb the country, that war was averted.
Instead we see it going to a ‘neutral party’, an international organization few had even heard of until it became a useful lever to manufacture ‘just cause’ for smiting Syria. There is also an interesting and relevant back-story to the OPCW.
In 2002, the head of the (OPCW) was Jose Bustani. At that time, Mr. Bustani had made it clear that he was willing and able to persuade the Iraqi government to grant OPCW inspectors full access to Iraq’s purported chemical weapons arsenal. Mr. Bustani was, however, unable to pursue his initiative because John Bolton, on behalf of the US government, had Mr. Bustani removed from the OPCW under the implicit threat that if other members did not go along with this particular US-orchestrated ‘coup’, the US government would refuse to pay the rest of its dues to the organization. The reason why the then Bush government was determined to remove Bustani should be clear. If Saddam signed up to the OPCW, the US government could no longer promote the bogus claims that Saddam had WMDs and was intent on using them.
After his removal, Bustani told the UK Guardian newspaper that he believed the Bush administration did not want Iraq to become a member of the OPCW because it might interfere with the warmongers’ plan to invade Iraq. Retired Swiss diplomat Heinrich Reimann echoed Bustani’s words when he told the Associated Press in 2005: “Many believed the US delegation didn’t want meddling from outside in the Iraq business.” Similarly, former Bustani aide Bob Rigg, a New Zealander, said: “Why did they not want OPCW involved in Iraq? They felt they couldn’t rely on OPCW to come up with the findings the US wanted.”
In short, since 2002, the OPCW has been a tool for US government propaganda and warmongering. A fitting Noble laureate indeed in a world run by the insane.
John Kerry was recently forced to admit that Syria won this round. Assad called his bluff by giving up his country’s chemical weapons in double-quick time. The U.S. bullies could save face by claiming that this only came about because they pointed the full weight of their own gargantuan military arsenal in Syria’s direction.
But this is far from over. If recent history has taught us anything, it’s that once the War Machine has set its sights on a target, it will obliterate it, one way or another. The warmongers may have tried to pull a fast one against Syria in late August, but if we think back to the run-up to ‘shock and awe’ in Iraq, many months of diplomatic pretense unfolded before the airstrikes began.
From November 2002 to March 2003, we saw round-the-clock coverage of Iraq’s non-existent WMDs, filled with meaningless debate about UN weapons inspectors and compliance with UN resolutions and international treaties.
In the short-term, it was a smart move by Syria to yield, but in doing so, it risks falling deeper into the bigger trap of guilt-by-association: in acknowledging that they had stockpiled chemical weapons, it becomes easier for Western propagandists to insinuate that they had actually used them ‘against their own people’, such things as facts and evidence be damned.
And now the Nobel Peace Prize has gone to an organization whose staff are currently on the ground in Syria to oversee the decommissioning of weapons that the Syrian military never used in the first place.
Meanwhile we’re told that Israel, the only country in the region that actually used chemical weapons recently, and which many suspect indirectly used them in Syria, is apparently “still considering” signing up to the Chemical Weapons Treaty. Which, of course, means that they have absolutely no intention of doing so, a posture Israel can get away with as long as it remains the West’s ‘special little colony in the Middle East’.
In early 2012, the Nobel Peace Prize committee allegedly came under investigation by a Swedish charities board because of its “politicized selection of nominees”. I’m unsure what if anything came of this investigation, but the core complaint being made was that the committee was doing the opposite to what its founder had originally intended:
“Nobel’s intention was to reward the promotion of peace and lessen the role of military power in international affairs… and that he had in mind the peace movement, i.e. the active development of international law and institutions, a new global order where nations safely can drop national armaments.”
Awarding the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize to an international organization that is being used as a political tool by the warmongers places it in the same category of dubious “politicized selection”. Awarding the OPCW the Nobel Peace Prize serves to reinforce the false standard set by the warmongers (Obama’s “red line”) that possession of WMDs, CWs, nukes, etc – that is, the mere potential that another country may use technology for malicious purposes, assuming that they even have such technologies at their disposal – is the ‘Mother of All War Crimes’.
It is not, of course.
Under international law, bombing civilians is a war crime.
Under international law, bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime.
Under international law, torture is a war crime.
The U.S. and its allies strut around the international stage decrying the alleged pre-crimes of others, while the US and it’s allies actively commit very real war crimes every single day, and have been doing so for the past hundred years.
This is why something that can’t be said enough, needs to be said again: psychopaths rule our world.