Skybird
10-11-13, 06:49 AM
In principle, if the organisation would have really proven itself against resistance and in real challenges, it would be a decision that is okay, because the Peace Nobel Prize has been meant by Alfred Nobel to reward achievement sin demilitarization and military disarmament. Ecology, feminism, civil rights - all this has had the intention by Nobel being abused in the past. Not to mention the highly dubious winners of recent years, with the EU and Obama topping the hit list of absurdities.
However, there can be little doubt that the OPCW is given the prize now to boost its status in Syria. It is not a reward for past accievements. While by nature the work of the OPCW fits Nobel'S intention of "rewarding achievements in demilitarization", it has so far not proven itself in the face of real opposition and challenge, "working under fire", so to speak. So far it helped voluntary actors (countries) that wanted to get rid of their chemicals voluntarily, and did cooperate in that. Mostly we are taking about the heritage left after some civil war in some third world country ended.
Even that may not be seen as a serious obstacle to award the OPCW the Nobel. What spoils it for me is that once again the committee tries to not reward but to get actively engaged in politics by giving the price in advance - with regard to Syria - and merely hopes to push things at the direction the committee wants the to go. It is not the committee's duty or right to push things where it wants them to go. It is to decide past, proven, historic achievements. Anything else is a violation of the prize as it was intended by the founder.
The decision is not as questionable as the prize given to let's say Arafat, Gore, Obama or the EU. But due to the "Syrian intention" that by all reason due to the timing is springing into the eye and can almost be taken for granted, it sorts itself into the long line of other, weak decisions made by the committee. This decision today at least does nothing to restore some of the corrupted reputation of the prize.
One can tolerate the decision. Applauding it one must not.
However, there can be little doubt that the OPCW is given the prize now to boost its status in Syria. It is not a reward for past accievements. While by nature the work of the OPCW fits Nobel'S intention of "rewarding achievements in demilitarization", it has so far not proven itself in the face of real opposition and challenge, "working under fire", so to speak. So far it helped voluntary actors (countries) that wanted to get rid of their chemicals voluntarily, and did cooperate in that. Mostly we are taking about the heritage left after some civil war in some third world country ended.
Even that may not be seen as a serious obstacle to award the OPCW the Nobel. What spoils it for me is that once again the committee tries to not reward but to get actively engaged in politics by giving the price in advance - with regard to Syria - and merely hopes to push things at the direction the committee wants the to go. It is not the committee's duty or right to push things where it wants them to go. It is to decide past, proven, historic achievements. Anything else is a violation of the prize as it was intended by the founder.
The decision is not as questionable as the prize given to let's say Arafat, Gore, Obama or the EU. But due to the "Syrian intention" that by all reason due to the timing is springing into the eye and can almost be taken for granted, it sorts itself into the long line of other, weak decisions made by the committee. This decision today at least does nothing to restore some of the corrupted reputation of the prize.
One can tolerate the decision. Applauding it one must not.