Following the EU, another organization is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, namely the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). As in the case of the EU, the basic intention of the OPCW is indeed worthy of being awarded: the European integration goes along with an outstanding period of peace in Europe, the OPCW is an instrument for disarmament. However, the timing of these announcements seems questionable and might doubt the authenticity of decisions of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize is a form of secular sanctification. In Catholic Church, sanctification declares the life and work of a person as agreeable to God. By that a certain concept of life is made a concept to lead a truly Christian life. The Nobel Peace Prize serves an analogue function: the work of a person or organization is determined as in accordance with justice and humanity. Through that, the Nobel Prize committee creates role models for moral and political orientation.
The European Union was awarded for its commitment for democracy and for human rights, while at the same time it incapacitated democratically elected governments like the Greek one in its own decisions. Thus, not only the EU’s commitment to peace was morally rewarded, but also its autocratic policies against large parts of its citizens’ will. OPCW’s commitment to monitor and destroy stockpiles of chemical weapons is being awarded in an atmosphere, where once again the war drum is banged according to the rhythm of the weapons of mass destruction mantra. That legitimizes a politics of fear which not rarely justified an intervention and a regime change in the favor of the intervening force.
Undoubtedly, the images of the chemical attack near Damascus were shattering. The responsible people for this slaughter are nothing else but war criminals. However, in the complex and opaque situation on the ground it is still not clear who actually let the button being pushed, and why. So the focus on the issue of chemical weapons detracts from more crucial questions which could actually be of more value for a strategy towards peace. In addition to that, the discussion about weapons of mass destructions constantly nurtures the possibility of a foreign military strike which would not only cause chaos, but would also cause several hundreds of civilian casualties. And it is exactly this politics – be it intentionally or accidently – which the latest Nobel Peace Prize Award justifies and rewards in terms of a moral and just political strategy.
Recently, it has often been the US as well as Israeli politicians who made use of this mantra of weapons of mass destruction over and over again in their politics towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iran. Yet actually, the conventional weapons which are in use in all modern militaries nowadays are to a large extent way more deadly than chemical weapons. Nevertheless, it is some of these modern armed forces, which use chemical weapons like for example phosphor: Israel in Lebanon in 1982 and 2006, as well as from 2009 until 2012 against Gaza, the US Army in 2004 in Iraq. Bombs using the chemical element of phosphor are not listed as chemical weapons by the OPCW.
Since the Nobel Peace Prize is not unrelated to politics, it was the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons who was awarded with it, and not Assange, Snowden or Manning. Also Malala Yousafzai will receive her Nobel Prize in the coming years. For a long time this prize has been a mainstream award, more supporting realpolitik by the creation of realpolitik saints than opposing it. No wonder Mahatma Gandhi was unsuccessfully nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 12 times until he died in 1948. Posthumous awards are not common. Who would deny Gandhi this prize of justice and humanity nowadays? Indeed, the British Empire did back then. In some decades’ time, history might justify Snowden, Assange, and Manning. And maybe then, the Nobel Peace Prize committee will do so as well.
