Nobel Peace and Human Rights Propaganda

Finian Cunningham  Press TV

The Nobel Peace Prize should be renamed the Nobel Propaganda Prize, after this year’s ever-so contrived award to the UN-approved chemical weapons team sent to disarm Syria.

Various dubious winners of the illustrious prize include former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (who oversaw the genocidal carpet-bombing of Indochina during the 1970s), two former terrorists (Irgun leader Menachem Begin and Chief Operations Officer of Palmach Yitzhak Rabin), fraudulent bankster Muhammad Yunus (who is battling corruption and tax evasion charges), US President Barack Obama (despite his use of assassinations and murderous aggressions in multiple countries, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria), the European Union (who got the prize in behalf of NATO for killing Muammar Gaddafi and turning Libya into a failed state).

A Norwegian-based committee of seemingly Scandinavian neutrality makes the award every year as it has done for more than a century ever since 1901. The prize was the creation of Alfred Nobel, a major armaments manufacturer. That in itself speaks volumes of the institution’s contradictory nature.

Last year, the winner of the Nobel Prize was yet another disgrace to morals and commonsense in the form of the European Union. How can a bloc of governments be remotely considered peaceful when it is wiping out basic social welfare for millions of its citizens in the service of criminal banks and elite private wealth? Or when it is lifting a weapons embargo on extremists running amok in Syria? Or colluding in the enforcement of crippling economic sanctions on Iran — based on nuclear calumnies cooked up by Western military intelligence — sanctions that are killing women and children from the lack of basic imported medicines?

While there have been a few deserving winners of the Nobel Peace Prize down through the years, nevertheless it is best to treat this institution with skepticism, if not derision. The meritorious aspects of the award can serve to give credence to the dubious and deplorable associates. In that way, it is more a Propaganda Prize than a Peace Prize. 

This year’s recipient, the inspection team belonging to the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons), has only begun their work last week to dismantle stocks of weapons-grade chemicals in Syria. This is part of the arrangement that Russia proposed last month to avert an illegal war of aggression being planned by the Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama. The Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad has fully signed up the disarmament process.

However, it is precocious, to say the least, to award the OPCW with the Nobel prize, just like it was for the Oslo-based committee to give the award to Obama in 2009, only within months of his first election and before he went on to prove himself one of US-America’s most warmongering presidents since World War II.

How do we know that the OPCW will be effective in disarming the chemical weapons of the Western-backed mercenary groups fighting to overthrow the Assad government? How do we know that the OPCW will not mischievously misuse its remit and Nobel Laureate status to advance the Western propaganda narrative against the Syrian government? 

The awarding of a peace prize based on no track record conjures suspicion that the institution and its benign connotations are being used to inculcate a reprehensible political agenda. The same insidious propaganda formula of supposed virtue concealing vice can also be seen in the report this week by the New York-based Human Rights Watch group on massacres carried out by foreign-backed militants in Syria.

That report accuses up to 20 Al Qaeda-linked groups, including Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Shams), of killing scores of civilians in Syria’s western Latakia Province during early August.

Such apparently damning testimony from a Western human rights organization may seem like a positive development.

But, as with the Nobel Peace Prize, there is a very real danger that the HRW report is merely acting as a whitewash of Western government crimes.

For a start, the HRW report claims that it has found the “first evidence of crimes against humanity by opposition forces”. That infers that previous atrocities are attributable to the Syrian government forces. This is simply false. Many reliable sources have found that most, if not all, major massacres in villages and towns across Syria over the past two and half years have been committed by the anti-government mercenary groups.

Western media and human rights groups, including HRW and Amnesty International, have deliberately or incompetently misattributed those crimes to Syrian government forces, which then serve to bestow a false moral authority on Western governments for their illicit interference in Syria.

For example, both HRW and Britain’s state-run media outlet, the BBC, as well as the US government’s Voice of America, have run reports that Syrian state forces carried out napalm bombings of schools in Raqqa and Aleppo in the north of the country. These reports are based on unverified amateur video released by so-called opposition groups, such as Ahrar al-Sham, which themselves have been involved in carrying out atrocities, as in Latakia Province during August.

HRW and the Western media continue to blame the chemical weapons incident on 21 August near Damascus on the Syrian government. HRW has openly attacked other credible sources, which have reported that that incident was a heinous fabrication, very possibly perpetrated by Western-backed militants as a calculated provocation.

There is strong suspicion, backed up by circumstantial and testimonial evidence, that the children portrayed as poisoned in the opposition-released videos of the 21 August incident in East Ghouta near Damascus were kidnapped by militants during their terror raids on villages in Latakia in the previous weeks. Their deaths were therefore staged for vile propaganda purpose, with which the Western governments, media and human rights industry have subsequently lashed Bashar al-Assad, eventually leading to the appointment of the OPCW inspection team and, bizarrely, their Nobel award.

The latest report by HRW on the massacres in Latakia notes that there are still over 200 people, mainly women and children, missing from those attacks. But HRW does not address the glaring connection to the anonymous child victims filmed in the East Ghouta incident.

A further insidious propaganda effect of the HRW report into the massacres by militants in Latakia is that it reinforces the illusion that the militants in Syria are divided between the “bad extremists” and the “good moderates”, whom the Western governments support. HRW says that it found no evidence linking the supposedly Western-backed Free Syrian Army to the Latakia atrocities.

However, this is contradicted by earlier reports that the leader of the FSA, General Salim Idris, (a moderate “darling” of Western governments), was in Latakia during the murderous rampages. Not only was Idris present in Latakia, he was videoed celebrating “the success” of operations.

On August 11th, the New York Times reported: “The visit by the Free Syrian Army commander, Gen. Salim Idris, appeared intended to show that he and his fighters were also involved in the Latakia seizures [sic] as part of a new front in the civil war.” That report added that Idris crowed about “accomplishments” in a released video.

The Human Rights Watch group is therefore not a positive contribution to clear the fog of war that the West has been pumping out relentlessly over Syria — far from it. HRW is a deep and insidious part of the problem. In fact, it is whitewashing the very real criminal involvement of Western governments and media in the covert war of aggression against Syria.

Nobel Peace Prizes and Western human rights groups may sound innocuous. But they are a central part of the Western propaganda machine, as much as MI6, CIA, Mossad, the Pentagon, Whitehall and the panoply of Western news media outlets with notable and celebrious titles, such as BBC and New York Times.

Note of the Editor:

This years Nobel Peace Prize award has definitely a political purpose, which is: to shift the focus of attention from the atrocities committed by the murderous, from the West onto Syria unleashed terrorist gangs, to Syria’s army and the nations defense capabilities. This award intends to foster the impression, that the government controlled chemical weapons were an imminent threat to the population and a factor in the ongoing war.

Throughout the 20th century, beginning with the 1931 award for Nicholas Murray Butler, who was a conservative Republican and a racist, to the awards for Kissinger, Sakharov, Begin, Rabin, the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s choices intermittently reflected the political views of the West, but in the 21st century the Nobel Committee has become decisively partisan and can now be rightfully added to an ever growing array of NGOs (Al, HRW, Avaaz, OSI, Freedom House, Golos) who clandestinely or openly carry the water for the ruling elites of the neocolonial powers.

 An (incomplete) list of questionable Nobel Peace prize awards:

Nicholas Murray Butler,
Henry A. Kissinger
Andrei Sakharov
Menachem Begin
Shimon Peres
Yitzhak Rabin
Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank
Barack H. Obama
European Union