Nobel

I’ll have Fredrik Heffermehl, author of The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted, have the last word, straight from Oslo:

“Malala Yousafzai is a courageous, bright and impressive person, education for girls is important and child labor a horrible problem. Worthy causes, but the committee once again makes a false pretense of loyalty to Nobel and confuses and conceals the plan for world peace that Nobel intended to support. If they had wished to be loyal to Nobel they would have stressed that Malala often has spoken out against weapons and military with a fine understanding of how ordinary people suffer from militarism. Young people see this clearer than the grown ups. She even, when she met U.S. President Obama, gave him a stern warning against drone warfare and said it only served to increase hatred and the number of terrorists.

“I do hope that Malala will stick to her early concerns of the problem of militarism. There are signs that her helpers and advisors have turned her away from the delicate issues of militarism and over to the safer issue of education. By moving her away from the Nobel idea of global disarmament she has become more palatable to the Nobel committee.

“Once again the Norwegian awarders have got it wrong. They have a person-focus not an idea-focus. Nobel’s intention was not a prize for nice people doing fine things, but for persons promoting a specific approach to world peace.”

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

THE SULTAN CHANNELS LAWRENCE OF ARABIA

Lawrence

Sultan Erdogan pulled a spectacular Lawrence of Arabia yesterday in Istanbul, at Marmara University:

“Lawrence was an English spy in an Arab land. But currently, the spies are springing out from our own countries in the shape of a journalist, writer or even a terrorist. You can witness the new ‘Lawrences’ trying to set the region on fire.”

Fascinating; virtually a century after perfidious Albion spawned the 1916-18 Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire, the New Sultan is now once again denouncing the West a well as Arabs.

The Sultan also stressed the “artificially made” borders drawn by colonial Britain and France post-World War 1 are “the real cause of long-term pain and crises.”

That’s even more fascinating; he’s as stridently decrying the Skykes-Picot agreement as his rival… The Caliph!

For The Sultan, “Turkey is the only country that can provide peace in the region. Turkey is the hope of the Middle Eastern people. Turkey can remove the barriers between Middle Eastern people not by changing physical borders, but by instilling hope and trust.”

As in “Assad must go; all power to the Muslim Brotherhood; preventing any possibility of Kurdish self-determination; and getting NATO to do the dirty work.

But all of this, of course, is off the record.

The Sultan has all the motives in the world to be uneasy. It’s true that a century later, Arabs are not revolting – again – against the New Sultan. But as much as they are also pro-“Assad must go”, their not-so-hidden agenda is fundamentally intolerant and sectarian: against Iran and Shi’ism in both Iraq and Syria.

Not to mention against the Muslim Brotherhood – which they see as a mortal threat to their dictatorships.

And not to mention these GCC petrodollar Arabs are not exactly jubilant with the notion of Turkey as the dominant regional power.

So many Lawrences on the loose. Such an enticing alliance on the horizon between The Sultan and The Caliph. Where’s Peter O’Toole when we need him?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn

FROM POL POT TO ISIS: “ANYTHING THAT FLIES ON EVERYTHING THAT MOVES”, by John Pilger

KissingerBlair

In transmitting President Richard Nixon’s orders for a “massive” bombing of Cambodia in 1969, Henry Kissinger said, “Anything that flies on everything that moves”.  As Barack Obama ignites his seventh war against the Muslim world since he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the orchestrated hysteria and lies make one almost nostalgic for Kissinger’s murderous honesty.

As a witness to the human consequences of aerial savagery – including the beheading of victims, their parts festooning trees and fields – I am not surprised by the disregard of memory and history, yet again. A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today’s Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect. They, too, were the product of an American-made apocalypse, this time in Asia.

According to Pol Pot, his movement had consisted of “fewer than 5,000 poorly armed guerrillas uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty and leaders”. Once Nixon’s and Kissinger’s B52 bombers had gone to work as part of “Operation Menu”, the west’s ultimate demon could not believe his luck.

The Americans dropped the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on rural Cambodia during 1969-73. They levelled village after village, returning to bomb the rubble and corpses. The craters left monstrous necklaces of carnage, still visible from the air. The terror was unimaginable. A former Khmer Rouge official described how the survivors “froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told… That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over.”

[Please click to continue reading]
Continue reading FROM POL POT TO ISIS: “ANYTHING THAT FLIES ON EVERYTHING THAT MOVES”, by John Pilger

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pageShare on StumbleUponFlattr the authorShare on RedditPrint this pageShare on LinkedIn