- This year's Peace Prize came prematurely, as for Obama, according to the University of Tromsø. The Peace Council criticizes the Nobel Committee for honoring institutions, again. While Syrian-Norwegian SV politicians believe OPCW does not help Syrian civilians.
(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
(NB! An incursion caused this article to get the wrong byline in Ny Tid's edition 18.10.2013. The article is written by Tika Sofia León. We apologize, editor's note)
Allocation. "The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2013 should be awarded to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for its comprehensive efforts to abolish chemical weapons."
This was stated by Nobel Committee leader Thorbjørn Jagland during the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize 2013, Friday 11. October. Jagland pointed out that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has been instrumental in establishing the use of chemical weapons as a taboo under international law and that the work for the Chemical Weapons Convention has been implemented. Contrary to the Geneva Convention of 1993, the 1925 Convention also prohibits the production and storage of chemical weapons.
The Nobel Committee leader also pointed to the chemical weapons attack in Syria in August as an argument for why the organization was awarded the award:
"What is important about OPCW is that it has now become an instrument for solving the crisis in Syria aimed at chemical weapons. It could also open up a broader solution to crises in Syria, ”Jagland said.
This past week has also been full of praise for this year's award, in contrast to last year's Peace Prize to the European Union (EU). Both politicians, volunteers and the media have praised the award to OPCW. But Tor Christian Dahl-Eriksen, first lecturer in political science at the University of Tromsø, is critical of OPCW's award this year.
- I basically think that the award should be awarded based on what has happened, not what will happen. This also applies to the assignment of, for example, US President Barack Obama in 2009, says Dahl-Eriksen. He continues:
Facsimile: New Time Edition 38.
- OPCW has a history that makes them a worthy winner, but not necessarily the most relevant candidate right now – unless the award is meant to positively impact the work the organization is going to do in Syria and which we do not know the outcome of today. Therefore, it would have been more natural for me to wait one year for this award, even though I recognize it would affect a process as a legitimate argument.
- Who do you think should have received the award?
- Personally, I had no particular favorite, but should I still choose one, then the choice of the doctor Denis Mukwege falls for his extensive humanitarian work among war casualties in the Congo. It would have been funny if Malala (16) had received the award, but there are heavy counter arguments related to both her age and her safety. Besides, this is hardly the last time she is a candidate, Dahl-Eriksen points out.
Unknown award winner
A search of the Media Archive shows that before 10. October – with an NRK article online a few hours before the award was announced – there were no media reports or mentions that indicated that OPCW was nominated or was relevant to become a Peace Prize winner. Even in previous years, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has been linked to the Nobel Prize in some recorded media.
Syrian opposition figures have been critical of the award in the past week, believing the OPCW Peace Prize could strengthen the Assad regime by making the removal of chemical weapons a success factor – while killing civilians daily from other types of weapons. In a reader's post in this week's edition of Ny Tid, Syrian-Norwegian Hiam Al-Chirout, international leader in Vestfold SV, argues that Malala Yousafzai or Turkish-Kurdish Leyla Zana should have received the peace prize. She believes the OPCW received the award because Western countries are most concerned with chemical weapons, as this is also about Israel's security, not just Syrian civilians.
Precisely on this argument, Hedda Langemyr, general leader of the Norwegian Peace Council, disagrees with:
- It may be that Israeli security is one of many factors, but first and foremost this year's Peace Prize is about putting the humanitarian situation in Syria on the agenda. OPCW's work extends far beyond the region's borders.
It is an organization that for nearly 20 years has been working to eliminate chemical weapons stocks worldwide. To narrow it down to dealing with Israel is both half-conspiratorial and narrow-minded from my point of view, she says.
Langemyr is initially positive at the OPCW award:
- Since the work of drawing up an international agreement to destroy chemical weapons was signed 20 years ago and came into force in 1997, OPCW has been in charge of monitoring compliance with the Convention and facilitating the destruction of chemical weapons. This is an important cause in itself. Beyond this, the award is important as support and political momentum for the demanding work the organization is facing in Syria, she emphasizes, adding:
Ahmet Uzumcu. Photo: opcw.org
- At the same time, the award serves as inspiration for similar movements, which work for an international ban on other weapons of mass destruction. It gives wind in the sails to movements such as ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), which is working towards a final ban on nuclear weapons, says Langemyr.
Long-term work
The leader of the Peace Council agrees with Dahl-Eriksen that one could have waited a year, but she points out to Ny Tid the importance of remembering that the OPCW receives the award for their many years of work and not just for their efforts in Syria.
- I agree with the criticism that indicates that OPCW would deserve to receive the award next year as well, but we cannot ignore that they have already put in a tireless effort to get rid of chemical weapons internationally. It should not be misunderstood that OPCW is given the prize solely for their role in Syria. The organization has worked for many years to destroy stocks of such chemical weapons, totaling over 80 percent of the world's chemical weapons stocks. To name a few examples, OPCW has previously worked in Albania and India to perform the same tasks that they are now going to work on in Syria. Syria has recently as it 190. the country in the world signed the convention, Langemyr points out.
- Which core criteria in the Nobel will testify to the Norwegian Peace Council that this year's prize winner fulfills?
- The most obvious is the criterion of disarmament. The organization has worked systematically for disarmament within one of the weapons types that today kill people in the worst possible way. Some have advocated, claiming that since OPCW does not work for the elimination of all types of weapons, the organization is not worth the price. They help make the best of the enemy of good, Langemyr believes, adding:
- It may not be the case that only work for complete disarmament is rewarded, while working to ban different categories of weapons is considered to be of little value. Those who use energy and energy to destroy some of the worst weapons we know of should qualify for the Nobel criteria for disarmament work. The OPCW deserves to be recognized and rewarded for its efforts, says the Peace Council leader.
Not for the NGOs
However, she partially agrees with Nobel historian Fredrik Heffermehls in his recent criticism of the Nobel Committee for using the Nobel Prize to pay tribute to statesmen and serve western official politics.
- I agree with Heffermehl that it is unfortunate that the award goes more and more often to supranational institutions and very heavy political institutions. Part of the idea behind the Peace Prize was that it should go to peace advocates from the grassroots movement.
We see that happening less now than before, so the criticism is so far legitimate. Whether this is solely about serving Western political interests is in any case a speculation case that I will not comment on.
According to Langemyr, fewer grassroots movements receive the Peace Prize today because people in modern times have become better at organizing.
- Modernization has led to an increased degree of cooperation between people and countries, heavier coordination bodies and coordination of organizations that do powerfully important work in the same field. The difference lies between intergovernmental cooperation and non-governmental organizations that cooperate across national borders. I wish there was an even greater focus on civil society and the forces of civil society that are taking the initiative for intergovernmental and supranational solutions. And to the driving forces in civil society, which over many years work out the formalized agreements.
- But is there a grassroots alternative to OPCW that should have received the award?
- As far as I know, it is not in the field of chemical weapons. But it is clear that there are many who work with the regulation of arms trade and who work for the abolition of other types of weapons, such as nuclear weapons and combat drones. However, OPCW is the most supportive player working on chemical weapons today, says Langemyr.
Worth the award
Who has fulfilled the core criteria of the Nobel will and how the criteria should be interpreted has changed over time – often to strong criticism. In an article on NRK Ytring, Fredrik S. Heffermehl, lawyer and Nobel historian, has argued that OPCW is not a worthy winner of the Nobel Prize. According to the Nobel historian, the organization lacks a global approach, with the goal of getting all countries to abolish all types of weapons. First Lecturer at the University of Tromsø, Dahl-Eriksen.
- Heffermehl criticizes the award ceremony every year, and he has some good arguments in relation to the wording of the Nobel will. On the other hand, if one is to interpret this document written more than 100 years ago strictly formalistically, it becomes very difficult to further develop the understanding of what peace work can entail. One must find a reasonable balance here, but I can agree with Heffermehl that some of the awards in recent years are based on a very broad interpretation of the will. But in my view, this does not apply to this year's award, says Associate Professor of Political Science, Tor Christian Dahl-Eriksen, Ny Tid. ■
This is the introduction to the main issue in the weekly magazine Ny Tids issue 38, 18.10.2013. Read more in this week's issue, on sale in stores across the country. Get the edition sent for free by subscribing (Abo@nytid.no)or click here.
