Advertisement
In an effort to resuscitate its diminished reputation, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee made an intriguing decision this year and delivered the award to an organization in the middle of Syria’s debacle. Although certain recipients of the prize in recent years have caused the award to lose both esteem and meaning among the international community, this year’s designation may prompt a tilt in that trend.
Barack Obama’s acceptance of the Peace Prize in 2009 perhaps did the most damage to the award in modern history. While his achievements at the time were solely rhetorical, President Obama would forever have to enact meaningful policies as a Nobel Peace laureate. When the President decided to move ahead with the troop surge in Afghanistan, for example, he did so as a man of peace. Rendering the Peace Prize either contradictory or moot, Obama is undoubtedly a blemish on the Nobel Committee’s record.
This year, however, the Committee awarded the Peace Prize to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW.) Based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, the OPCW is the enacting body for the Chemical Weapons Convention. Arriving into action in April 1997, the Convention is an arms control treaty that prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. In addition, the organization focuses on the complete destruction of chemical weapons. Today, once Syria is accepted as a member, the Convention will consist of 190 member states.
The Nobel Committee’s conclusion to reward the OPCW for its work on chemical weapons, while noble and praiseworthy in itself, has also tremendously raised the bar in Syria. The OPCW currently has a team deployed, along with the United Nations, to oversee the destruction of chemical weapons equipment. Now, with the badge of a Nobel Peace Prize, the organization has an additional spotlight cast upon itself as it tries to deal with this onerous situation. The team’s mission is to eliminate all of Syria’s chemical weapons by the middle of 2014, but if this deadline requires an extension or if the Assad regime is no longer cooperative, the OPCW’s mission will become much more difficult.
In between a brutal Syrian war, the OPCW is facing an unprecedented task. Destroying weapons of mass destruction is a treacherous undertaking in normal conditions. But when particular weapons have been hidden, multiple sides of a war are at odds, and the environment on the ground is exponentially hostile, mistakes cannot occur. Still, with all this in mind, the Nobel Committee decided to grant the Peace Prize to an organization designed to destruct weapons of mass destruction. That is nothing to play down, no matter how dubious the previous award recipients may be. The OPCW does not have the luxury of knowing in advance which countries will use chemical weapons against their own populations. Syria may be an unprecedented mission, but the OPCW deserves all the support it receives.
As the OPCW receives this support from the Nobel Committee and others, however, it cannot be overlooked that the frontrunner for the Peace Prize was snubbed in the end. Global education activist Malala Yousafzai, who many believed would receive the award for her outspoken efforts promoting women’s rights, was denied the prize in a surprising decision. After surviving a malicious attack from the Taliban in Pakistan, Malala has dedicated her life to fighting for education and women. But not fighting in the traditional sense.
Jon Stewart recently asked Malala about how she would react to a confrontation with her attackers. Malala explained that she would not use violence in the encounter:
“If you hit a Talib, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib. You must not treat others with cruelty…You must fight others through peace and through dialogue and through education.
Serving as the encapsulation of peace, Malala seemed to be the perfect person to receive the Peace Prize this year. While the Nobel Committee never provides reasons for its rejection of candidates, many peace advocates consider the decision a surprise and a missed opportunity.
The Nobel Peace Prize is a foggy award. With recipients ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Barack Obama nobody can be sure if the award still embodies the values it seeks to promote. In any case, this year the Committee has decided to embrace the complete eradication of weapons of mass destruction, and that has to count for something. Although not a leap, the Committee has at least taken a step in the right direction.
This year, however, the Committee awarded the Peace Prize to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW.) Based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, the OPCW is the enacting body for the Chemical Weapons Convention. Arriving into action in April 1997, the Convention is an arms control treaty that prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. In addition, the organization focuses on the complete destruction of chemical weapons. Today, once Syria is accepted as a member, the Convention will consist of 190 member states.
The Nobel Committee’s conclusion to reward the OPCW for its work on chemical weapons, while noble and praiseworthy in itself, has also tremendously raised the bar in Syria. The OPCW currently has a team deployed, along with the United Nations, to oversee the destruction of chemical weapons equipment. Now, with the badge of a Nobel Peace Prize, the organization has an additional spotlight cast upon itself as it tries to deal with this onerous situation. The team’s mission is to eliminate all of Syria’s chemical weapons by the middle of 2014, but if this deadline requires an extension or if the Assad regime is no longer cooperative, the OPCW’s mission will become much more difficult.
In between a brutal Syrian war, the OPCW is facing an unprecedented task. Destroying weapons of mass destruction is a treacherous undertaking in normal conditions. But when particular weapons have been hidden, multiple sides of a war are at odds, and the environment on the ground is exponentially hostile, mistakes cannot occur. Still, with all this in mind, the Nobel Committee decided to grant the Peace Prize to an organization designed to destruct weapons of mass destruction. That is nothing to play down, no matter how dubious the previous award recipients may be. The OPCW does not have the luxury of knowing in advance which countries will use chemical weapons against their own populations. Syria may be an unprecedented mission, but the OPCW deserves all the support it receives.
As the OPCW receives this support from the Nobel Committee and others, however, it cannot be overlooked that the frontrunner for the Peace Prize was snubbed in the end. Global education activist Malala Yousafzai, who many believed would receive the award for her outspoken efforts promoting women’s rights, was denied the prize in a surprising decision. After surviving a malicious attack from the Taliban in Pakistan, Malala has dedicated her life to fighting for education and women. But not fighting in the traditional sense.
Jon Stewart recently asked Malala about how she would react to a confrontation with her attackers. Malala explained that she would not use violence in the encounter:
“If you hit a Talib, then there would be no difference between you and the Talib. You must not treat others with cruelty…You must fight others through peace and through dialogue and through education.
Serving as the encapsulation of peace, Malala seemed to be the perfect person to receive the Peace Prize this year. While the Nobel Committee never provides reasons for its rejection of candidates, many peace advocates consider the decision a surprise and a missed opportunity.
The Nobel Peace Prize is a foggy award. With recipients ranging from Martin Luther King Jr. to Barack Obama nobody can be sure if the award still embodies the values it seeks to promote. In any case, this year the Committee has decided to embrace the complete eradication of weapons of mass destruction, and that has to count for something. Although not a leap, the Committee has at least taken a step in the right direction.