The OPCW may be performing the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria, but it was Russian President Vladimir Putin, who deserved the Nobel Peace Prize as it was his initiative, which prevented World War III, political analyst F. William Engdahl told RT.
The 2013 Nobel Peace Prize has been handed to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is currently working hard on dismantling the chemical stockpiles in Syria.
Experts from the group recently entered the country following international agreements, which were proposed by Russia and prevented “limited military action” against the Syrian government of Bashar Assad by the US.
The plan to eliminate chemical weapons in Syria may meet its deadline if the Saudi backers of the Syrian opposition will tell them to pull back, F. William Engdahl, author of "Myths, lies and oil wars," believes.
RT:Will this Prize really help the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons do its job in Syria?
F. William Engdahl: I don’t think the Nobel Peace Prize is going to help eliminate the chemical weapons out of Syria. I think that’s going to be done on an entirely different level. I think that the awarding of the Prize to that particular organization was really a political dodge by the Oslo Nobel Peace Prize Committee – the Norwegian Parliament Committee – that awards the Peace Prize. In point of fact it should’ve gone to President Putin and I say this because it’s his intervention into this entire process that gave Obama an escape route out of what potentially looked like it was going to be World War III. The organization… the organization designated to do such a removal job, but they didn’t make the initiative.
RT:But it seems to have a habit of awarding
organizations – it was EU last year – but not individuals. Do you
think there’s reason for that?
FEW: I don’t know. They awarded it to president Obama
before he had even sat down in the Oval Office. And they awarded
it to [former US Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger a few years
before. They’ve awarded it to Doctors Without Borders, but keep
in mind that the Norwegian Parliament Peace Prize Committee is
very much a political body and is very much connected to the NATO
agenda both in the civilian side and military side. So, if you
look at the pattern of the awarding of the Peace Prize –
actually, over several decades – you’ll get a very strong
impression that it’s underscoring a certain Western agenda,
globalist agenda if you will.
RT:Some of the rebel factions have refused to sign up to the chemical disarmament deal will they be able to hamper the process?
FEW: Yes, it’s hugely important change in the whole Syrian situation on the ground. And all the evidence that I’ve seen, including from the Israeli accounts, is that the [Bashar] Assad government in Syria is cooperating with the removal process. But these rebel groups and we’re talking about the al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra and others, the same groups, who were involved in the massacre of women and children back in August that you reported on earlier from the Human Rights Watch report. I’m sure they’re going to try to hinder in every ways they can. The question is whether foreign backers of them – Saudi Arabian intelligence chief, Prince Bandar [Bin Sultan Al Saud] and the Saudi money in general has been backing the al-Qaeda in Syria up until very recently. If they’re going to send a very strong signal to pull back and let the weapons be removed peacefully. So, that we just know yet.
RT:Complete chemical disarmament by next summer – is this a realistic deadline for Syria?
FEW: It looks like it isn’t going to be as complicated as it had been feared by reports I’ve seen. So, it may be that it proceeds more quickly. Let’s certainly hope so.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.