December, 10 2012, 01:55pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
Protests Against Betrayal of "Nobel's Will"
Reuters reports today: "Around a thousand members of left-wing and human rights groups marched in Oslo on Sunday to protest against the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. ... Past prize winners Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Perez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire have also said the EU does not deserve the award."
WASHINGTON
Reuters reports today: "Around a thousand members of left-wing and human rights groups marched in Oslo on Sunday to protest against the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. ... Past prize winners Desmond Tutu, Adolfo Perez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire have also said the EU does not deserve the award."

The three Peace Prize recipients recently wrote: "The European Union, announced by the Norwegian Nobel Committee as the winner of the peace prize for 2012, clearly is not one of 'the champions of peace' Alfred Nobel had in mind when he described the purpose in his will. We ask the Board of the Foundation to clarify that it cannot and will not pay the prize from its funds. ...The purpose of the peace prize is clarified by recent research. In 2008 Fredrik S. Heffermehl, a Norwegian lawyer and author and a former IPB [International Peace Bureau] Vice President, published the first known legal study of the prize and its purpose. In 2010 he published "The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted" (Praeger, 2010), with later updates in Chinese, Finnish and Swedish (Leopard, 2011)." See full text of their letter.
FREDRIK HEFFERMEHL, [email]
Author of "The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted," Heffermehl said this morning on the program Democracy Now!: "The Prize has come to serve the exact opposite of what it was intended to serve ... to support the work for breaking the military tradition and creating global peace or demilitarized global peace order. It's a very radical idea."
Heffermehl said today: "A summit of the European Union that today receives a prize that pretends to serve Alfred Nobel's peace plan, will this coming Friday adopt a military cooperation program that spits in the face of the peace by disarmament ideas Nobel wished to support by his prize for a global demilitarization of international relations. ... The peace movement Nobel wished to support has protested against the prize to the EU and -- if the Swedish authorities fail to intervene and stop payment -- is considering legal action against the Nobel Foundation in protection of their rights.
"Nobel wished to support the peace movement in political opposition to traditional official military and power politics. In his will Nobel calls the recipients the 'champions of peace' (fredsforfaktare, Friedensverfechter) no doubt having in mind the movement working for a demilitarized global peace order (eine entmilitarisierte 'Volkerverbruderung')."
See full text of Nobel's will, which calls for the Peace Prize to be awarded to those who have done the most "...for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Threatens Full Trade Embargo Over Spain's Refusal to Be Complicit in Iran Attacks
Ripping the US president's "flagrant disregard for European sovereignty—and security," co-general coordinator of Progressive International declared: "Close the bases. All of them."
Mar 03, 2026
President Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened to cut off all trade with Spain over the Spanish government's refusal to allow US aircraft to use its military bases for the war that the United States and Israel are waging on Iran.
Speaking with reporters at the White House beside German Chancellor Friedrich Merz just after noon Eastern time, Trump initially signaled that he'd already taken action against Spain, but less than 10 minutes later, the president suggested he was still deciding.
Referring to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was also in the room, Trump said: "Spain has been terrible. In fact, I told Scott to cut off all dealings with Spain."
Trump claimed that "it started" last year, when every other NATO member caved to US pressure to aim for spending 5% of gross domestic product on defense by 2035, "and Spain didn't do it."
"And now Spain actually said that we can't use their bases. And that's all right. We could use their base if we want. We could just fly in and use it. Nobody's going to tell us not to use it. But we don't have to. But they were unfriendly," the president continued. "Spain has absolutely nothing that we need other than great people. They have great people but they don't have great leadership."
Again complaining about their refusal to commit to 5%, he said that "we're gonna cut off all trade with Spain. We don't want anything to do with Spain."
However, just minutes later, while referencing the recent US Supreme Court ruling against his sweeping tariffs, Trump said: "As an example, we talked about Spain. I could, tomorrow, stop, or today even better, stop everything having to do with Spain. All business having to do with Spain, I have the right to stop it—embargoes, do anything I want with it. And we may do that with Spain."
Both sets of remarks were swiftly denounced by a range of critics. The anti-war group CodePink declared: "Ludicrous. The US is threatening to stop all trade with Spain to force them to spend more money in an effective US weapons cartel. This is only normal in a war economy."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, called out Trump's threat to use Spanish bases without permission. Sharing a clip on social media, he said, "Trump openly threatens the territorial sovereignty of yet another NATO ally.
Zeteo journalist Mehdi Hasan similarly responded: "He is a 19th century imperialist. Or at least talks like one and wishes he was one. 'We could just fly in' to Spain, against the wishes of the sovereign national government? That's literally an illegal invasion and brazen violation of international law."
On Monday, David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International, welcomed Spain's decision and argued that "Europe should close all of the US bases on its soil."
After Trump's Tuesday comments, Adler said: "Flagrant disregard for European sovereignty—and security. Enough. Close the bases. All of them."
"Holy shit—Trump said this while sitting next to Friedrich Merz?!" he added. "Total European humiliation. Truly abject."
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur focused on the occupied Palestinian territories and a target of Trump administration sanctions, responded to the US president by praising the "strength" of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.
"The peoples of Europe do not want to be complicit in a system that kills children and protects those who profit from their blood," Albanese said. "Europe deserves better, and you are already part of that change. Thank you."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Pentagon Official Does Backflips Trying to Claim US War on Iran Is Not ‘Interventionism’
Grilled by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Pentagon's third-ranking official denied that the US attack on Iran conflicts with the Trump administration's stated National Security Strategy.
Mar 03, 2026
A top Pentagon official attempted to argue during a US Senate hearing on Tuesday that the Trump administration's illegal war on Iran, which has included a massive bombing campaign and explicit calls from the president to topple and reshape the country's government, does not constitute "interventionism," "regime change," "nation-building," or "endless war."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) started her questioning of Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon's under secretary of defense for policy, by quoting from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's summary of his department's 2026 National Defense Strategy, under which he said the Pentagon would no longer "be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nation-building."
"Interventionism, that means going to another country and bombing them," said Warren. "Endless wars: wars that may last we don't know how long, because there's no clear endpoint. Regime change, which the president has said this is all about. And nation-building: Evidently, the president seems to think he's going to come in and build a different Iran."
Colby, the third-ranking official at the Pentagon and just one of the high-ranking officials tasked with, tried to dispute that the US assault on Iran—carried out in partnership with Israel—falls under any of those categories.
"I think I would characterize it fundamentally differently," said Colby. "This is certainly not nation-building. This is not gonna be endless."
Watch the full exchange:
Warren: The Trump administration's national defense strategy: No longer will the department be distracted by interventionism, endless wars, regime change, and nation building.
Colby: This is not nation building.
Warren: So this is not interventionism?
Colby: No.… pic.twitter.com/CWXNoeCnjV
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 3, 2026
Asked if the assault on Iran is "interventionism," Colby responded, "No... Interventionism is a more, I would say, kind of responsibility to protect or something. I mean it's not, obviously, precisely defined."
"Really? And we didn't do this in order to try to protect Israel?" Warren asked.
"Well, that's one of the goals," Colby said, prompting Warren to respond, "Oh, so it is interventionism."
Warren said the decision to wage war on Iran shows that President Donald Trump and his lackeys are willing to "say one thing in a campaign, write it down on paper, and then go do whatever the hell [they] want."
"So the Trump administration first says it's gonna be America first, then puts out a National Defense Strategy, and then goes to war alongside Israel—illegally, unconstitutionally—and that is now the policy of the Trump administration," the senator said.
During his 2024 election-night victory speech, Trump vowed that he was "not going to start a war," but since taking office he has attacked seven nations: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Venezuela, and Iran.
The assault on Iran, and the killing of its leader, came just weeks after the Trump administration abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—all brazen violations of domestic and international law.
"Trump spent years ranting against the regime change wars started by his predecessors—and the damage they inflicted on Americans," Mohamad Bazzi, director of the Center for Near Eastern Studies, wrote in a Guardian column over the weekend. "On Saturday, he launched his own war in the Middle East, with little hint of how it might end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Poor Jeff’: Sanders Ridicules Bezos-Owned Washington Post for Attacking Billionaire Tax Plan
"Surprise! The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post is against my 5% billionaire wealth tax," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "I wonder why?"
Mar 03, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders mocked Jeff Bezos on Tuesday after the editorial board of the newspaper owned by the Amazon founder denounced his plan to tax billionaires' wealth.
In an opinion piece published Monday, the Washington Post editorial board accused Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored Sanders' wealth tax plan, of threatening to "strangle America’s golden goose" by hitting billionaires with an annual 5% wealth tax.
"Sanders wants to confiscate 5% of all assets every year from America’s billionaires, with the goal of stealing half their fortunes," the editorial complained. "He estimates, unrealistically, that this could raise $4.4 trillion over 10 years to fund a wish list of progressive fantasies, including something akin to a universal basic income and more government-managed healthcare."
The editorial then argued this was bad because "even for billionaires, a 5% tax on every asset they own would virtually wipe out any gains they make in a normal year," and would force them to sell off some illiquid assets such as "collections of wines, art, jewelry, and yachts" just to make their annual payments to the government.
The editorial concluded by claiming "Sanders and Khanna take as a given the capacity of American capitalism to deliver continuing prosperity, no matter how many anchors they weigh it down with," then warned that "economic history proves that future growth is never guaranteed."
In a social media post, Sanders mocked the Post editors for publishing an opinion piece defending the economic interests of their owner, whose current net worth is estimated by Forbes to be well north of $200 billion.
"Surprise! The Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post is against my 5% billionaire wealth tax," Sanders wrote. "I wonder why? If enacted, Bezos would owe $12 billion in taxes, and an average family of four would receive a $12,000 direct payment. Poor Jeff would be left with just $224 billion to survive."
In a news article about the tax plan published by the Post Monday, Khanna was quoted as saying it was needed to address the historic disparities in wealth that have only grown over the last 50 years.
"This is Sen. Sanders' defining vision for our age," Khanna explained. "It is the most ambitious and transformative legislation for our times to tackle inequality in the New Gilded Age."
Wealth inequality has become so acute that the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal in February published a news analysis declaring that billionaires' tax avoidance schemes were "becoming a problem for the economy."
The Journal last month also published an analysis of US wealth inequality by chief economics commentator Greg Ip showing that corporate profits’ share of gross domestic income is now the highest it has been in more than 40 years, while the share of income paid out in workers’ wages is at the lowest.
“Profits have soared since the pandemic, and the market value attached to those profits even more,” wrote Ip. “The result: Capital, which includes businesses, shareholders, and superstar employees, is triumphant, while the average worker ekes out marginal gains.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


