But, will Nobel-winning OPCW be effectiveIJ
Those who had expected Malala Yousafzai to get the Nobel Prize for Peace this year, will be sorely disappointed that she has lost out to the weapons’ watchdog, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. The school girl from the Swat region in Pakistan, who miraculously survived an attack by the Taliban last year, has come to symbolise the growing aspiration of women to be empowered through education. The Taliban wanted to eliminate her — and they are still determined to do so — because she had raised her voice in favour of education for girls, which the Taliban found ‘un-Islamic'.
Far from being silenced, Malala has since then amplified her demand, which is reverberating across the globe. She has also expressed her commitment to enter politics in her country, and hopes to some day be the Prime Minister. Regardless of the Nobel miss, she will continue to battle for education, and some day perhaps she will get the world's most prestigious award. Meanwhile, all eyes are focussed on the winner. But what is the OPCW going to do to justify the high recognitionIJ It has, to begin with, an awesome task at hand to get rid of chemical weapons in Syria. If it fails to do so, questions will be asked on the purpose served in giving it the Nobel award. It cannot be forgotten that the prize has been timed with its efforts to persuade the Syrian regime to destroy the large arsenal of chemical weapons the latter has accumulated over the years and, according to many observers, used on its civilian population some weeks ago.
The international outrage which flowed after reports that nearly 1,400 persons died in the nerve gas attack, pushed the OPCW in the limelight. The Nobel jury has rarely won acclaim for its decisions on the peace award. last year it gave the prize to the European Union for no justifiable reason. It even failed to recognise the open infighting within the Union and the endangered economies of some of the EU members. Earlier, it had honoured US President Barack Obama for an achievement that many believed did not exist. At best, the Nobel jury had judged the matter prematurely, in the hope that some day Mr Obama will live up its expectation!
For the OPCW to maintain credibility, it has to work not just on Syria but on those other countries that possess chemical arsenal. According to an investigation by CNN, both the United States and Russia are sitting pretty on chemical weapon stockpiles. Even the Nobel committee, while announcing the award, noted: “Certain states have not observed the deadline for destroying their chemical weapons. This applies especially to the US and Russia.” The US estimates that it will take at least 10 years to destroy its remaining 10 per cent of chemical weapons of 3,100 tonnes. The OPCW says Russia has a stockpile of five times that amount yet to be destroyed. By contrast, Syria, according to estimates, has 1,000 tonnes stored all over the country. While both the US and Russia are justified in demanding an end to the chemical weapons regime in Syria, they ought to also look within and take steps that set a credible example. Neither the US nor Russia, CNN has pointed out, has adhered to the earlier deadlines to completely destroy their chemical reserves.