Alfred Nobel specified that the award be conferred for works during the preceding year which have been of the greatest benefit to mankind. Such works might involve the abolition or reduction of conflicting forces, the promoting of fraternity and holding of peace congresses.

Despite the question of her impartiality, Navi Pillay accepted the chair of the “Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” having previously endorsed the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) petition calling for Israel’s suspension from the UN and its total isolation.

Israel’s refusal to allow Pillay’s Commission entry to its territory on the grounds that it was “hostilely predisposed” did not deter it, assisted by secondary sources, from concluding that Israel was responsible for committing genocide in Gaza.

To prove genocide in international law requires specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Israel has repeatedly stated that its sole objective is to defeat the terrorist group Hamas. The fact that Israeli forces take active steps to protect civilians from harm in areas experiencing violent conflict disproves genocidal intent.

Ironically absent from the narrative charging Israel with genocide is any condemnation of the widely embraced genocidal intention of Israel’s enemies to eradicate it “from the river to the sea.”

In terms of promoting fraternity between nations and diminishing hostility, Navi Pillay’s 2025 report fails to tick those boxes Alfred Nobel specified. In contrast, President Trump successfully pursued the Abraham Accords he had initiated during his first presidency. He established the Board of Peace to move Gaza to a peaceful settlement. He also successfully closed down a thirty-year conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan – all Nobel Prize requirements.

The Nobel Committee’s official October 9 announcement broadly cites Pillay’s career efforts to promote peace and international law. It does not cite achievement of fraternity in 2025 or an actual peace conference. Instead, the citation is a cumulative review of her international judicial involvement.  Moreover, its reference to the Rwanda Tribunal, over which she presided some 25 years ago, is hardly embellished by the fact that the UN Appeals Chamber subsequently annulled certain of her decisions, citing lack of sufficient legal evidence.

When Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, the Committee secretary, Geir Lundestad, admitted that despite not having satisfied the Award’s basic requirements in the initial months of his presidency, it was believed the prize would help Obama to achieve his intended goals.

It would appear, then, that deviation from Alfred Nobel’s strict criteria also occurred in the awarding of the Prize to Navi Pillay.

The post Nobel Committee Deviated From Award’s Criteria appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.

In eleven instances in its statement, the SACP condemns the ‘imperialism’ of the US-Israeli military action in Iran. That is ironic because communists have no right to be critical of imperialism when, since the dawn of communism’s tyranny in Russia, imperialism has been the modus operandi and strategy of Marxism-Leninism.

International law has never proved a roadblock to communism’s numerous incursions imposing its despotism on peoples. The SACP’s ostensible concern for the loss of life caused by US-Israeli action in Iran is totally bereft of sincerity when it is stacked up against the 100 million victims of communism under Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Castro and the likes of Mengistu in Ethiopia and Samora Machel in Mozambique.

If international law amounted to anything, how does the SACP simply ignore the tens of thousands of Iranians murdered by the theocratic Khamenei regime? How is it that a military operation intended to rid the region and the wider world of a serious nuclear threat, the key promoter of terrorism and the suppressor of human rights, is viewed by the SACP as “belligerent” and “reprehensible?”

By what stretch of logic can the bloody tyranny of the Khamenei theocracy be regarded as a “progressive force?”

Communism stuttered to an end in Russia in 1991. Its collapse was a result of its inability to continue enforcing a delusion which promised social equality by brutally suppressing the wellspring of human individuality – initiative and enterprise which flourishes only under liberty.

Thus, the trickle of press statements from the SACP is like a reincarnation of the staple Soviet fare once published by Pravda. At best, however, its statements are also proof that  there are those who learn nothing from history.

The post SACP Statements Are Self-Contradictory appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.

There was no outcry when, in 2021, the Biden regime offered $25 million for information leading to the removal of Venezuela’s despot, whose presidency was denounced by 50 countries as “illegitimate.”

Since 2021, Maduro has been a fugitive of American justice. He headed the feared de Los Soles narco-terror organisation, which controlled Venezuela. What indefinite, unilateral right did he have to use Venezuela’s oil to finance terrorism and oppression while, with impunity, shipping narcotics to the US?

Of course, the talking heads of the Left evade that question. Instead, they claim Trump is really only seeking to control Venezuela’s vast oil reserves to aggrandize America’s wealth. But blinded by Trump derangement, his assurance that Venezuela will enjoy the maximum benefit of its oil in a liberated, transformed country is a script that does not match the narrative of the Left.

As the master strategist, Trump knows that leverage over Venezuela’s oil enables him to curb the imperialist path of Venezuela’s biggest oil consumer, China. He knows he can ramp up pressure on Cuba, the six-decade-long socialist dystopia in the Caribbean, propped up by Maduro. He knows he can hobble the financing of terrorism – all in pursuit of his aim of “peace, liberty and justice for Venezuela” while subduing the menace of narcotics.

Trump’s actions are premised on his assertion of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine by which the US declared the Western hemisphere as its domain within which to safeguard stability and security and to act against hostile threats.

Whilst Jainath’s speculation of Trump executing a Maduro-type strike on South Africa may make sensational headlines, Trump has smarter ways of applying leverage to remove the ANC proxies of the world’s chief promoter of terrorism, Iran’s mullah regime.

Besides, Trump is not out to “steal” South Africa’s resources. Rather, he sees the need to deter China from exploiting them, recognizing that China’s Road and Belt strategy aims to assert control over shipping routes of which the Cape is a key to Indian Ocean traffic.

Trump derangement and studied ignorance of Trump’s policy of peace through strength, sadly, is what informs articles like Jainath’s, because Maduro’s capture should inspire hope.

The post Maduro’s Capture Should Inspire Hope appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.

Such emotional outbursts stand in stark contrast to the silence of those voices over the years of oppression of the people of Venezuela by Maduro and the narco-terrorist cartels. Of course, these are the same voices that went mute when Hamas slaughtered 1,219 Jews on October 7, 2023 and abducted 251 as hostages.

If those ostensible clarions of morality considered the context of Maduro’s removal, they might be more cautious about shouting from the rooftops. Not reported by the mainstream media was the telephone offer President Trump made to Maduro weeks ago of a free passage from Venezuela without terms and conditions if he relinquished power. Failing that, Trump indicated that his Administration would act decisively.

It should also be borne in mind that the Trump Administration had branded the Maduro regime as a narco-terrorist and as such, essentially a threat to and an enemy of the US. In terms of the Monroe Doctrine, Trump is fully justified in acting against a state within the Western hemisphere that violates the stability of the region and is hostile to the US.

The feeling of relief amongst rank and file Venezuelans that the ogre of oppression has been lifted is proof enough that they welcome their liberation, which Trump has made possible. That should be something to celebrate instead of hypocritically grandstanding about the “rights” of a tyrant.

The post Defence of Maduro Steeped in Hypocrisy appeared first on Duncan Du Bois.