Patiently waiting for peace prize dividends

It is impossible to know if OPCW will live up to Nobel prize expectations, but it deserves the benefit of the doubt.

When the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was awarded the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize earlier this month, the announcement was met with decidedly mixed reactions. The most vocal critics were those who felt the award should have gone to Malala Yousufzai, the schoolgirl who has become a prominent education campaigner after surviving an attack by the Taliban. However, other detractors loudly noted that the OPCW hadn’t really ‘done’ anything yet, so the prize was premature at best. (This isn’t exactly accurate; while the organisation has only recently begun the monumental task of ridding Syria of its chemical arsenal, it has overseen the destruction of nearly 80 per cent of the world’s declared chemical weapons stockpile over the last 15 years.)

The annual granting of the Nobel Peace Prize can be guaranteed to stir up strong emotions from observers. The nomination process can be heavily influenced by public opinion and the prize itself often recognises the shining lights of the day. But criticism of certain recipients is unsurprising. Henry Kissinger (co-recipient in 1973) does not strike most people as an outspoken advocate for peace; similar charges are levelled against Barack Obama (the winner in 2009).

Sometimes — as is the case this year — the winner is an organisation: various UN agencies have been awarded the prize over the years and the International Committee of the Red Cross has won multiple times. Famously, (or, rather, infamously) the European Union (EU) won the award in 2012, for contributing to ‘the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe’.

October 2012 was not the EU’s finest hour as the Eurozone monetary crisis had been dragging on for years. Cyprus’ banks had just failed and needed a massive bailout, and sceptical parliamentarians in the United Kingdom were threatening to pull out the union unless demands for budgetary concessions were met. When the announcement was made that the EU had won the Nobel Peace Prize, the world collectively raised its eyebrows in disbelief.

However, the committee’s choice has been vindicated this year in a political drama playing itself out in the Ukrainian parliament. Ukraine is not a member state of the EU; but it might be, someday, several years in the future. The country is currently being offered enhanced political and trade ties with the EU ahead of a summit in November 2013 — but there are strings attached.

A prominent Ukrainian opposition politician, Yulia Tymoshenko, has been in jail since 2011 on what many independent observers feel are trumped-up charges. Ms Tymoshenko is a fierce critic and adversary of the current president and her imprisonment is very politically sensitive. The EU has made any closer cooperation between its institutions and Ukraine dependent upon a resolution to the Tymoshenko question and Ukrainian lawmakers are currently debating legislation that may allow her to leave Ukraine for medical treatment in Germany. Whether such a solution would ultimately permit her return to politics, as is her wish, remains to be seen. But it would address the immediate issue of her possibly illegitimate imprisonment and pave the way for further talks in November.

This is the crux of why the Nobel Peace Prize committee got it right in awarding the 2012 prize to the EU. For all its flaws and missteps, the EU is still a club that countries want to join. Over the years, the EU has learned how to wield its soft power to advance its diplomatic aims, which — as the committee noted —are broadly concerned with democracy and human rights. In order to even have preliminary talks about a trade deal, Ukraine’s president must undertake a course of action that will open him to intense internal criticism and any closer association with the EU is guaranteed to deeply annoy Russia, its largest and most powerful neighbour. That Ukraine is willing to soul-search so publicly is a noteworthy achievement in and of itself and evidence of the EU’s largely beneficent influence. It is impossible to know if the OPCW will live up to the outsized expectations that have been forced upon it since winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but it might and the organisation deserves the benefit of the doubt. History has shown that patience is sometimes required for the peace prize to pay dividends.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 25^th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.