The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has won, against all odds, the Nobel Peace Prize for this year. The OPCW was awarded the prize for their efforts in dismantling Chemical Weapons belonging to the Government in Syria, thus ending the chemical attacks that garnered such widespread international attention.
I should probably preface this article with an immediate admission: I do not agree with the choice of the OPCW as the winner of this years Nobel Peace Prize. Over the course of this article, I hope to justify that opinion. The Organisation, formed in 1997 and based in the Hague, was awarded the prize for having “defined the use of chemical weapons as a taboo under international law” along with the Chemical Weapons Convention. It has, coincidentally, failed to punish the US and Russia for not adhering to the April 2012 deadline for eliminating Chemical Weapon stockpiles, but hey more about the good stuff, yeah? The OPCW was pivotal in providing a framework and setting out an agenda for ridding Syria of Chemical Weapons, which should be mostly done by November. That is, more or less, it. That’s all. Commendable work certainly, but it is what can essentially be described as the OPCW’s job to do this.
The award has caused some moderate amount of consternation from a number of people. Primarily, one of the most valid critiques comes from, well, the Syrians. They raise the rather valid point that whilst the OPCW is currently destroying Syria’s chemical weapons, and should be lauded for doing so, there is still something of a war going on. Indeed, the point of the OPCW is for the absolute prohibition of Chemical Weapons; they prevent their use and facilitate their destruction. If the OPCW had effectively prevented the use of chemical weapons, we wouldn’t have had this mess in the first place. Additionally, the choice of the OPCW has upset those who, either because of admiration or a bizarre choice of betting, were rooting for the the firm favorite. The firm favorite was the 16 year old Malala Yousafzai, a Pakistani girl who, despite getting shot in the head (which is usually quite a decisive motivator not to do something any more), continued to campaign for girls to have the right to an education. Already having won the EU’s top Human Rights prize the Sakharov Award, as well as Harvard University’s Humanitarian of the Year, Malala was tipped to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead of a young girl who risked her life fighting for the rights of herself and those around her, the right to an education, to the extent that violent extremists tried to kill her, the award has gone to a manifestation of the International Community. This has upset a few people, that the new darling of the West did not win, though we shall discuss that a bit later. Not only did the OPCW fight off competition from Malala, but the chemical watchdog also apparently narrowly beat Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, according to inside sources. And by inside sources, we do mean al-Assad himself, who we can only assume suggested that he ought be the winner in a highly ironic and jovial manner.
Good job guys (this is probably the least horrific image you’ll find when searching for “Chemical Weapons Syria” on Google)
Saying that, the award does have something of a dodgy past. Frerik Heffermehl, a Norwegian Activist/Lawyer, released a book that compares the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize to the criteria that Nobel set out in his will in 1895. The translation of the relevant portion of his will reads (translated from Swedish): “…and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses…” In Heffermehl’s book, he contests that prior to the second World War, most prizes were awarded according to Nobel’s will. Since then, the issue is much more contentious. Take, for example, Barack Obama’s award in 2009, given just 12 days into his run in Office. Given for an ambitious international agenda, the award was criticised an account of Obama not having actually achieving anything at the point in time. Certainly, at that point the country that Obama was running was engaged in two wars abroad with Iraq and Afghanistan. Last years winner; the European Union, received much criticism from former laureates of the award, including Desmond Tutu, Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Esquivel, who stated as much in an open letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The letter was also signed by the International Peace Bureau, as well as other peace activists.
The Nobel Peace Prize certainly has had a history of dubious winners; more a political statement than an award in accordance with Nobel’s original ideal and in retrospect, the OPCW is perhaps not the worst choice for the prize. However, the prize was awarded to an organisation that is merely facilitating an action desired by certain members of the international community. It was by negotiation between Sergey Lavrov (Russian Foreign Minister) and John Kerry (US Secretary of State), with a mandate from the UN, that has allowed the OPCW to carry out its good work. In short, the OPCW did nothing to achieve the point at which it is allowed to carry out its purpose. However, the terrible conflict that the Chemical Weapons were being used in still rages on. Countless numbers of innocent Syrians continue to die needlessly every day, but in a way that is slightly more acceptable by international law; through good old conventional bullets and missiles. Certainly the progress made in ridding the world of these wretched weapons should be encouraged, but let us give credit where it is actually due; in the negotiations that made the removal of chemical weapons possible. The OPCW is simply the tool of international efforts, predominated by the Russians and to an extent the Americans.
By extension, I do not mean to say that Malala should have won by default; there were 150 different contenders for this year’s award. Without an extensive analysis of these competitors, it would be remiss to say one person is more deserving than all of them (though I would certainly assert that Malala is more deserving than the OPCW, though that by no means should she have been the winner). A strong argument could be made, also, for Edward Snowden, considered by many to be a hero for standing up to his own country in the name of morality.
But let us consider this: these people, these heroes, did not do what they have done so that they might be recognised by a dead Swedish inventor’s legacy, not for some million dollar prize. They did what they did out of doing what they considered to be right in the face of severe adversity, for which they have earned many people’s admiration. We should not weep when our heroes don’t win prizes. If they are half the people we hold them up to be, they shouldn’t care anyway.