Yes it has reached that time when another Nobel Peace Prize
has been given away to an individual or organisation that are considered
creditable by a committee of cocks. This time the committee have awarded the
prize to the ‘Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’. Which I
admit would be a challenge for me to attack, considering the use of chemical
weapons is universally considered to be morally incomprehensible, even by myself. Despite this
I think it would still be right for me to argue that the OCPCW receiving a
prize of any form in relation to Syria is certainly premature, considering it
is one, Unknown to the extent of which Chemical weapons have been used, and two,
nobody has been legally held accountable for such war crimes, which as I have
mentioned are not fully known. Yes they destroy the chemical weapon stockpiles
themselves, but they do not attempt to legally attack those who have used them.
I think in this case anyway we should not be thanking OCPCW for destroying
Syrian chemical weapons, but rather Russia for placing diplomatic pressure on
Syria for allowing this.
Now as I continue I think it is noteworthy to mention that
OCPCW are a good organisation. It is also noteworthy to mention that the Nobel
Peace Prize is ill-fitting on them. The
Nobel Peace Prize had started off with noble origins, rewarding those who have
strived and succeeded for a greater goal of peace, most definitely via peaceful
action than that of violent action. Yet the Nobel Committee have nominated and
awarded members who do not live up to this category such as: Henry Kissinger (1973),
Teresa of Calcutta (1979), Nelson Mandela (1993), Al Gore (2007) Barack Obama
(2009) and European Union (2012). Let alone absurd nominations such as Joseph
Stalin who was nominated twice in 1945 and 1948.Which has thus resulted in me saying that the prize is now redundant, repugnant and simply ridiculous
To some people my list of names mentioned may be considered “controversial”
so I shall aim to tackle this in a series of short statements, evidence and
sources. Henry Kissinger was responsible for War Crimes, Crimes against
Humanity and crimes against international law; which include political assassination,
kidnap and torture. Taking place in nations from Vietnam, Bangladesh,
Indochina, Timor, Chile and Cyprus (C Hitchens ‘Trial of Henry Kissinger’).
Henry Kissinger’s list of crimes are just far too long to talk about in any
detail, nor should it be considered controversial since the source in which I
have mentioned was a bestseller, which resulted in Henry Kissinger being banned
from travelling to France, which confirms its legitimacy, if entering the borders he will be arrested for such
crimes listed and face a trial similar to that of the Nazis in Nuremburg, and
rightfully so also. In the words of a great hero of mine and the author of the 'Trial of Henry Kissinger' Christopher Hitchens: “Henry
Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and
should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded”.
Teresa of Calcutta or Mother Teresa
who was a “Fundamentalist, a fanatic and a Fraud”; responsible for “untold misery,
pain and was proud of it”. She had taken money from Mafia mobster Dictators in Haiti,
and herself provided money for political murders in Central America. Refused to
give any of her patients any form of pain medication other than paracetamol at
the most extreme case. She believed that the “love of God” was enough, yet when
she herself was ill, she allowed herself to have the best healthcare that the Italian
system can provide (CH4 ‘Hells Angel’ and C Hitchens ‘The Missionary Position’) a true hypocrite and a fraud.
Now
onto one of the most widely accepted “statesman” of the modern world, praised by
Hollywood and by pretty much everyone in the west, from recently deceased
singers such as Amy Winehouse to the BBC and all other news sources. I hold a
slightly different opinion to that of the Populists. I see Nelson Mandela as a member
and then leader of the African National Congress or ANC, the political party
that were responsible for Massacres, murders and torture. Mandela actually
pleaded guilty to signing off on 156 acts of public violence in his trial. Let
alone after destroying the evil apartheid system and becoming president, he befriended
and even financially supporting numerous African dictators and their equally
evil dictatorships based on similar racist principles to that of the Apartheid
system. Though I will state that one could argue despite these crimes, that he
did have the support of the nation, as he was elected as President from
1994-1999, he also destroyed the Apartheid system. Though the destruction of
the Apartheid system is a ridiculous reason for gaining the Peace Prize, unless
the actions of those involved were in themselves peaceful: which they were not. Many would frown at
the idea of Stalin winning the Peace Prize in 1945 or 1948 due to him being a
brutal dictator who also had partook in war crimes during the Second World
War. Yet Nelson Mandela also has such blood on his hands, at a much lesser
extent and scale I admit, but if anyone looks at him in greater detail they will see that
he isn’t the saviour in which he is marketed as.
Al Gore was nominated for the environmental reasons not
for Peace, so short and simple, just isn't worthy of its own paragraph. Barrack Obama was given the prize after spending less than a year in
office, after having not achieved anything. Seeing the Obama Administration now
in office at the latter half of his presidency, I think it would be hard to
argue how ridiculous that decision was, Obama has kept with George W. Bush’s
use of Drone strikes. He has wire tapped his own Citizens in the name of “Safety”
and attempted to start a war in Syria. It is clear that he certainly did not
live up to expectations of “Change We Need”.
The European Union on the other
hand is one of the most insulting winners in the existence of the Nobel Peace
Prize. The European Union’s figurehead policy the Euro is failing, resulting in
huge unemployment across Europe as well as internal confrontations of many
nations and the rise of extremes, Example being Greece and France with the rise
of Fascist popularity, which is in relation to the EU’s failed multi-cultural
programs. It was obvious that the EU certainly could not have won the Nobel Economics
award, so don’t give them the Nobel Peace Prize, one that they certainly can’t
claim.
So to conclude the Nobel Peace Prize is certainly redundant,
repugnant and simply ridiculous. It’s about time that we stop listening to the
Nobel Committee in Norway. It’s a Prize that has been dirtied by shameful
nominations since late 40s; has since been ruined by countless poor winners. To
those who I have yet to convince on this topic, I challenge you to seek
disputation of my claims, to argue my points. I believe that the evidence and
statements in which I have provided should be more than satisfactory to prove
the futility and ignorance of the Nobel Peace Prize, it has failed to do what
it was set up to do reward those worth rewarding in the goal and aim for peace.
Thus being redundant, repugnant and simply ridiculous.