Chemical weapons body deserves praise, but not a Nobel
10/12/2013 7:17:39 AM
On Friday the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons received the Nobel Peace Prize for “its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons”. The OPCW has only been around for 16 years, and it has one-fifth the staff and budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the world’s principal nuclear watchdog. The Nobel Prize committee’s announcement made clear that the organisation’s recent work in Syria was the real catalyst. Few had heard of the OPCW until the UN tapped it to inspect and shut down chemical weapons in Syria.
The OPCW’s work in Syria deserves lasting support, but given that its work has barely begun, does it deserve the world’s most prestigious prize? The chemical weapons round-up may succeed, but it very well may not. Should the prize honour accomplishment rather than promise?
Can the OPCW help put Syria’s chemical weapons beyond use? There are promising signs. The organisation has 27 people on the ground in Syria; they have reached three of the disarmament sites they intend to visit. But all of those sites are in firmly government-held areas; the same is not true for some of the 20-plus sites on their list.
Organising ceasefires so that the OPCW can enter rebel-held territory will not be easy. The organisation has an ambitious deadline; it is tasked with completing the disarmament by mid-2014. Given the complex politics involved, there are huge uncertainties ahead. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin are two of the world’s more mercurial leaders, and both need to consistently assist rather than block the process. In addition, the US, the primary force behind the disarmament effort, is thoroughly distracted by political squabbles at home that will continue for the foreseeable future. Its foreign policy team is focused more on the opening of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme than on the work of 27 chemical weapons inspectors in Syria.
The Nobel committee’s work is well-intentioned, but this is not the first time its leadership has invested in hope over experience. In 2009 the committee tapped Barack Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Without question the US president’s election made history, and important speeches delivered in Berlin and Cairo underscored its significance for the rest of the world. It was a gesture that inspired some, angered others and perplexed a good many on both sides of the Obama debate.
But it is not clear why the peace prize is not awarded on the same basis as other Nobel awards, which tend to honour the authors of true breakthroughs, those who have brought about an irreversible advance in their respective fields. Take this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics. In 1964, two physicists came up with the “theoretical discovery” that explained the mechanism that gives subatomic particles their mass. But the committee did not award Peter Higgs and François Englert 50 years ago in the hopes that their highly regarded theory would eventually prove true. Only last year did a team of physicists find the particle that verified the model. And only in 2013 did the Nobel committee honour these pioneers of science.
So how might the Nobel committee have expressed its concern over Syria and honoured irreversible accomplishment rather than hope? After more than two years of war, more than 100,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of people displaced, there is still no end to the Syrian war in sight. The successful removal of chemical weapons, crucial as that is for regional stability, cannot help the Syrian people today.
Instead, look to Sweden’s government. A month ago the government in Stockholm announced that it would grant permanent residency to any Syrian refugee seeking asylum that has already fled to Sweden. About 8,000 Syrians that were in Sweden with temporary permits will now be offered full permanent residency. All of these refugees will be allowed to bring their families with them. Sweden, which has accepted more of the victims of violence in Syria than any other European country, is so far the only EU member to adopt such a policy. But not for long. Countries such as Germany and Austria are taking similar steps.
Make no mistake: the Swedish leaders who approved this policy are taking on considerable risk. Opposition parties can use this decision to raise xenophobic fear. But the decision has been made, and thousands are already benefiting.
In a world where some conflicts are intractable, where distracted political leaders in embattled countries offer limited help, the most important force for peace and human rights may come from those who are already helping people cope with crises, rather than those who may one day find a way to fully resolve them.
Ian Bremmer
The OPCW’s work in Syria deserves lasting support, but given that its work has barely begun, does it deserve the world’s most prestigious prize? The chemical weapons round-up may succeed, but it very well may not. Should the prize honour accomplishment rather than promise?
Can the OPCW help put Syria’s chemical weapons beyond use? There are promising signs. The organisation has 27 people on the ground in Syria; they have reached three of the disarmament sites they intend to visit. But all of those sites are in firmly government-held areas; the same is not true for some of the 20-plus sites on their list.
Organising ceasefires so that the OPCW can enter rebel-held territory will not be easy. The organisation has an ambitious deadline; it is tasked with completing the disarmament by mid-2014. Given the complex politics involved, there are huge uncertainties ahead. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin are two of the world’s more mercurial leaders, and both need to consistently assist rather than block the process. In addition, the US, the primary force behind the disarmament effort, is thoroughly distracted by political squabbles at home that will continue for the foreseeable future. Its foreign policy team is focused more on the opening of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme than on the work of 27 chemical weapons inspectors in Syria.
The Nobel committee’s work is well-intentioned, but this is not the first time its leadership has invested in hope over experience. In 2009 the committee tapped Barack Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Without question the US president’s election made history, and important speeches delivered in Berlin and Cairo underscored its significance for the rest of the world. It was a gesture that inspired some, angered others and perplexed a good many on both sides of the Obama debate.
But it is not clear why the peace prize is not awarded on the same basis as other Nobel awards, which tend to honour the authors of true breakthroughs, those who have brought about an irreversible advance in their respective fields. Take this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics. In 1964, two physicists came up with the “theoretical discovery” that explained the mechanism that gives subatomic particles their mass. But the committee did not award Peter Higgs and François Englert 50 years ago in the hopes that their highly regarded theory would eventually prove true. Only last year did a team of physicists find the particle that verified the model. And only in 2013 did the Nobel committee honour these pioneers of science.
So how might the Nobel committee have expressed its concern over Syria and honoured irreversible accomplishment rather than hope? After more than two years of war, more than 100,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of people displaced, there is still no end to the Syrian war in sight. The successful removal of chemical weapons, crucial as that is for regional stability, cannot help the Syrian people today.
Instead, look to Sweden’s government. A month ago the government in Stockholm announced that it would grant permanent residency to any Syrian refugee seeking asylum that has already fled to Sweden. About 8,000 Syrians that were in Sweden with temporary permits will now be offered full permanent residency. All of these refugees will be allowed to bring their families with them. Sweden, which has accepted more of the victims of violence in Syria than any other European country, is so far the only EU member to adopt such a policy. But not for long. Countries such as Germany and Austria are taking similar steps.
Make no mistake: the Swedish leaders who approved this policy are taking on considerable risk. Opposition parties can use this decision to raise xenophobic fear. But the decision has been made, and thousands are already benefiting.
In a world where some conflicts are intractable, where distracted political leaders in embattled countries offer limited help, the most important force for peace and human rights may come from those who are already helping people cope with crises, rather than those who may one day find a way to fully resolve them.
Ian Bremmer