It’s always anti-climactic when an
organization wins a prize meant for single human being. The purpose of the Nobel
Peace Prize should be to reward a human being for their work, as Alfred Nobel’s will puts it, “for the fraternity between nations, for the abolition and
reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promoting of peace
congresses.” But the will also specifically says the prize should go to a “person.”
Yet this is the second year in a row the Prize has been awarded to an
organization.
The key to understanding why the
Committee acted as they did is the name of the organization: the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The Nobel Committee awarded the
2013 Peace Prize for “its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons”
primarily through its attempts to get countries to become signatories of its
Chemical Weapons Convention. An undeniably noble (no pun intended) mission that
fits neatly within the conception of the Committee’s purpose of rewarding the
peacemakers.
The second question to which the
mind runs after answering “why?” is “why now?” Surely the OPCW could have used
the money from the Prize much more when they started in 1997. Their current budget is around $95 million, or $25 million more than it was in the late
1990s. The timing is not about throwing a monetary life-saver to a deserving
but poor non-profit; instead, it’s about signaling.
The OPCW has recently undertaken a
task never before attempted: the oversight and verification of the destruction
of a country’s chemical weapons stockpile while that country is in the middle
of a civil war. As part of an effort to bring Syria’s al-Assad government into
the community of civilized nations, the United States brokered an agreement
with Syria’s patron state Russia to rid Syria of its chemical weapons in
exchange the United States not launching a missile attack against the al-Assad
regime’s forces.
The Committee, however, did not
just award the Prize to the OPCW for the purity of its motives and the degree
of difficulty of the task it faces. No, the award is a signal to the world at
large that the Committee is rewarding the adherence of nations to the
principles of multilateralism, international law, and cooperation over the use
of force. The OPCW is a symbol of a commitment the Kantian ideal of solving
problems between states through institutions rather than the use of force. That’s
why the Committee awarded the Prize last year to the European Community, not in
specific recognition for a particular act, but to reward a group of nations
going through the worst economic crisis of their existence who acted to solve
their problems as a group rather than balkanizing. Granted, the Committee stated that the EU’s Prize was for “over six decades contributed to the
advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe,”
but, again, the EU has been doing that sort of thing for years; its timing is what gives the Prize its significance.
Once one accepts that the
Committee is promoting the idea of security and peace through multilateral
institutionalism, their more curious – not to say controversial – awards make
more sense. President Obama, for example, received the Prize after a scant nine
months in office, primarily as a signal to the world of the Committee’s
displeasure at the Bush Administration’s unilateral approach to international
relations and casual approach to international law, not because of any
accomplishment of his own. Other Prize recipients – Henry Kissinger, Yasser
Arafat, Nelson Mandela - have both metaphorical and literal blood on their
hands, having spent their lives orchestrating or fighting conflicts.
The important
thing for the Nobel Committee, however, was that they worked to make peace at a
critical time, restoring order and bringing countries back into the community
of nations. In fact, this is part of the signal: Arafat was not being rewarded
for his lifetime of violent conduct within the Palestinian Liberation
Organization, but for his attempt to bring peace to the Middle East by bringing
the PLO to the bargaining table with Israel. So too is the Committee rewarding
the OPCW not just for its good works, but for its good works at a critical point
in the history of international relations.
No comments:
Post a Comment