The writer teaches at the University of British Columbia in Canada
Neither camp allows reasoned conversation and nuanced view about procedures and politics involved in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. Before I discuss politics and procedures related to the Nobel Peace Prize, let me make one point abundantly clear. I oppose, without reservation, the politics of those who consider it fit to rip open the skull of a fifteen-year-old girl as she heads to school.
Let us start with some procedural facts. Going by media reports, Malala was the front runner for the prize this year and her supporters on Facebook were convinced there was no better candidate to deserve the coveted, but controversial, award. Did these people and media pundits know who nominated Malala for the Nobel? Was she among the shortlisted candidates? The recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize is chosen by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the other four Nobel Prizes are decided by the Swedish Committee, which comprises five members appointed by the Norwegian parliament. The composition of the committee reflects the relative strength of political parties in the Norwegian parliament.
As per rules of the nomination, Malala could not have nominated herself. This is what the official the Norwegian Nobel Committee has to say about the nominated: “The Committee does not itself announce the names of the nominees, neither to the media nor to the candidates themselves.” If that is the case, then how did we know Malala was so close to receiving the prize? Once again, consulting the Norwegian Nobel Committee clarifies the matter: “In so far as certain names crop up in the advance speculations as to who will be awarded any given year's Prize, this is either sheer guesswork or information put out by the person or persons behind the nomination.”
In common parlance this is called a public relations exercise and/or lobbying. The massive media campaign in run-up to the announcement makes perfect sense. Release of the book I am Malala, a BBC documentary on her life, and blitzkrieg of television appearances on both sides of the Atlantic is event-management that will be the envy of many Oscar aspirants.
Malala Yousufzai will be 79-years-old in 2063 and that is when she will know why she was not chosen for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize which, instead, went to OPCW. The information about the nominations, investigations and opinions concerning about the award is kept secret for 50 years.
The Nobel Peace Prize is patently a political prize, invariably and inevitably surrounded by controversy. Its recipients range from warmonger Henry Kissinger to paragon of peace Nelson Mandela.
But this year, by awarding the prize to the OPCW, the Committee has actually followed the guidelines as set out in the will of Alfred Nobel. The Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”. By awarding the prize to an organisation that is “tasked to verify the elimination of chemical weapons from the world and to encourage all nations to adhere to this hard-earned norm”, the Committee did just that. Chemical weapons along with nuclear and biological weapons constitute what are collectively termed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) came into force in 1997 which prohibits the production of storage such weapons. The OPCW plays an important role as the watchdog to ensure that international taboo against the use of chemical weapons is adhered to by the member states. A total of 189 states have signed the CWC. There are two states, Israel and Myanmar, who have signed the CWC but not ratified it. Five states remain outside the ambit of the CWC. These include Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan, and Syria. An organisation which devotes itself to making the world free of chemical weapons deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 20th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (12)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Qualified Nominators for Noble peace prize are:
According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, a nomination is considered valid if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:
• Members of national assemblies and governments of states • Members of international courts • University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes • Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize • Board members of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize • Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) • Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee ) Ref. http://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/index.html
On subjective side the article was insensitive, and on objective side it was irrelevant. Irrelevant because issuing (un)qualified opinion about usage of funds is simply out of place... given the history of prize, as mentioned by learned writer and insensitive because it is giving an implied credit to gun taunting goons ... Taliban ,, to me it sounded like UMMAT newspaper ... ( a Jammat Islami sponsored newspaper)
As pointed by Harkol, I miscalculated Malala's age when the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize committee proceedings will be declassified. She'll be 66 at that time, and not 79 as I mistakenly calculated. It was an inadvertent error and I thank Harkol for correcting it.
Nobel is in good hands malala doesn't deserve it.
well they certainly made a lot of pakistanis happy by not giving the Nobel prize to a pakistani. nough said.
It is OPCWs job to eliminate chemical weapons; they get paid for doing that. Whereas Malala and her dad chose to stand against this oppression at their own will and initiative without expecting any monetary rewards. Furthermore, Malala put her & her family's life at risk for taking up this brave & noble cause, whereas OPCW did not. Surely, she did something extraordinary and unexpected!
This article is not well researched or accurate.
Malala will be 79 in 2063? How so? She is 16 now. She will be 66 in 2063.!
Nobel Prize nomination process is very clear. It is listed in Nobelprize . org. Malala was nominated by the Canadian MPs.
Nobel prize did not go to right candidate. Because, as per Alfred Nobel's will the prize was meant for a 'person' not organizations. The Norway politicians have twisted the meaning of Nobel's words.
If nobel is to be given to an 'organization' that does most for peace & disarmament in the previous years, then every year it must be given to an organization like OPCW or IAEA or UN or EU or some such which only do their job! Because no individual can ever achieve as much as organizations or countries!
Nobel was meant to encourage individuals - not organizations. It is clear to anyone who reads Alfred Nobel's will.
Malala was absolutely the right candidate for Nobel. She, as an individual, did the most in the past year to improve fraternity among nations. Which is the primary criteria mentioned in Nobel's will for awarding. Disarmament comes next.Request the author to do some research before writing an opinion piece, so as to not misinform.
lYes , I agree with Nizamani that the Nobel Prize went to its rightful owners despite my best wishes for Malala ....
Nowhere in your write up do you credit this brave girl, for being a frontrunner in the hearts and minds of millions around the world, for the the Nobel Peace prize. You instead spare no effort to justify her not getting it and technically you are correct but only technically. Then as you yourself say she has many detractors..............so true, so true.
Dear writer, well said! I was rooting for Malala and am of the opinion that her getting the Nobel prize would have benefited a noble cause and may have helped Pakistan in better understanding messages of peace.
At a rough guess I would say that people killed in warfare by chemical weapons, in the last 30 years, would be less than 1 %. The Nobel Peace Prize has become irrelevant in recent years. Awarding it to President Obama established that beyond any doubt. I do not think that Malala will be too disappointed. She has received many accolades in recent times.
May be. But Malala is still a winner by the way she conducts herself and her modesty. She has more modesty than Barack Obama who did not deserve Nobel prize but acted like he deserved it.