15 October 2013: This years Nobel Peace Prize went to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Derek Brown and Shirley Moulder argue that this is a worthy and timely tribute, which will hopefully bolster the efforts to eradicate chemical weapons.

Image credit: Magharebia Image credit: Magharebia

The award of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is a worthy and timely tribute to an institution engaged in a critical and ongoing endeavor
The Norwegian Nobel Committee’s award of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a worthy and timely tribute to an institution engaged in a critical and on-going endeavour. If, as in past awards, it is meant to bolster the work of this important (and until Friday, largely unheralded) agency, it must be viewed as more than an exclamation point to horrors of chemical weapons use in the Syrian civil war.

While the tragic history of chemical warfare dates back thousands of years, its modern variant is nearing its ignominious hundredth anniversary. The first large scale attack involving a chemical weapon (chlorine gas) occurred almost a century ago in April, 1915 at Leper (Ypres) in Belgium. By the end of the First World War, an estimated 90,000 people would be killed by chemical weapons and a further one million injured.

In the wake of the horrors of chemical weapons use in that war, international powers came together to sign the Geneva Protocol in 1925 banning the use of chemical and biological weapons, which became addendums to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. These treaties were followed by two more extensive conventions, the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, which the OPCW works to fulfil to this day.

Despite the long history of international attempts to regulate the use and production of chemical weapons, too many nation states and other non-state actors have been reluctant to abandon them. The incidents of chemical weapons deployment in Syria’s conflict echoes their tragic use by Saddam Hussein’s regime in both the Iran-Iraq War and against Iraqi civilians in the Kurdish town of Halabja on March 16, 1988 when between 3,200 -5,000 people died and a further 7,000 -10,000 were injured. What is different today is the international outcry. Three decades ago, much of Western Europe and the US was supporting Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War and turned a blind eye to the Iraqis’ chemical weapons use in one of the more shameful moments of recent history.

We can only hope that the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the OPCW this year will solidify the opposition to chemical weapons and ensure it is not just the result of changing strategic priorities.

We can only hope that the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the OPCW this year will solidify the opposition to chemical weapons and ensure it is not just the result of changing strategic priorities. While the use of chemical weapons and massive stockpiles in Syria has pre-occupied the global agenda in recent weeks, nation-states and their weapons stockpiles are not the only subject of concern. In 1995, thirteen people were killed and nearly a thousand injured in a sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway by an apocalyptic religious cult, Aum Shinrikyo. The Japan attacks, and the anthrax terror attacks in Washington in 2001, show that the ability to produce and deploy chemical weapons is not limited to belligerent states.

The OPCW faces a herculean challenge. The UN’s ambitious timeframe for eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles targets June, 2014 as the completion date. Other weapons analysts say it could take years. Beyond Syria, six nation states have either not signed or not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, South Sudan and North Korea), and others such as Russia and the United States are delayed in fulfilling their commitments.

No single institution, no matter how effective, can succeed in addressing both the current and potential threats of chemical weapons in our world. Neither will there be any satisfaction if OPCW succeeds in its goal of eradicating Syria’s chemical weapons supplies if it merely leaves Syrians to slaughter one another by more conventional means.

Like the Nobel awards in the fields of medicine, physics and chemistry, the Peace Prize is about building blocks of a much broader human endeavour. The efforts of past awardees make up a mosaic of influence that illustrates the breadth of human action necessary to secure and sustain peace. The OPCW will need not only these past laureates, but courageous individuals and institutions in Syria and beyond if it is to fulfil its mission and help the Peace Prize live up to its name.

This article was written by Derek Brown and Shirley Moulder. 

Shirley192Based in Johannesburg, Shirley Moulder, is longstanding advocate for human rights, peace and social development. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Peace Appeal Foundation.
Derek192Derek Brown is Executive Director of the Peace Appeal Foundation, which has supported dialogue and negotiations processes in Lebanon, Nepal and Sri Lanka.


Ruairi on Oct. 16, 2013, 1:20 p.m.

Hi Derek and Shirley, Thanks for this celebration of what the OPCW has achieved, as well as noting the large challenges they and others working to eliminate chemical weapons still face. The general media reaction to choice of the OPCW for the Nobel Peace Prize has been somewhat muted. We'll be adding a post on this topic here later in the week, but I would be interested into your thoughts, or those of any other reader, as to why there has not been more celebration of OPCW.

John Jones on Feb. 5, 2014, 12:19 p.m.

eNews of unspeakable war crimes committed by the Assad regime in Syria in recent years compounds the anger most of us must surely be feeling at the inept way we try to resolve these situations. So long as nation states can get away with such atrocities - in this case largely because the only available alternative to Assad could turn out to be even more chaotic and barbaric - who could have much confidence in a viable future for the planet? We are all collectively responsible for the mess we are in. When we set up the UN in 1945-6 and acquiesced in the power of veto given to security council members, accepting that nation states were capable of running the planet for the common good, we were positively asking for trouble. Trouble was what we got - in huge, unbelievably costly heaps. It is totally inadequate to imagine that vast amounts of international aid will be an acceptable response to the Syrian nightmare. We have a global problem to deal with not just a local disaster. It cries out for a global response. We cannot go on sticking plaster on ‘regrettable’ wounds. We have to go to the root of the problem and prevent the wounds being inflicted. We also need to do some hard thinking about the traditional male stereotype. If you click on the link below you will see how I think we can start the whole process of change: http://www.garrettjones.talktalk.net If you care to respond, please email me, John Garrett Jones [email address and biography at the links at bottom of my homepage]

ciara on July 24, 2019, 8:20 a.m.

This web site is really a walk-through for all of the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and you’ll definitely discover it.<a href='http://bestsitecontractors.pen.io'>have a peek here</a>

cialis 10Mg on Oct. 26, 2019, 12:37 p.m.

totally hat [url=http://cialissom.com/]cheap cialis for sale[/url] wide big cialis usa below guitar quite tackle http://cialissom.com/ virtually farm

decor on Nov. 6, 2019, 10:58 p.m.

Do you have any video of that? I'd want to find out some additional information.

More from the blog

We are asking for submissions of short videos to tell your story. From small initiatives making a difference in your community, to a national awareness-raising campaign, to work at a global or regional level – the best videos will be showcased at an event during the United Nations High- Level Political Forum in July, with selected candidates sponsored to attend in person. Read more »

01 May 2019

In this quarterly edition, Local Peacebuilding Experts from Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Colombia, India (Kashmir), Lebanon, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria and Ukraine provide their latest analysis of conflict in their areas - and what it means for peacebuilders. Read more »

19 March 2019

Peacebuilding in Colombia has a long history, and not all efforts in this field are linked to the current peace implementation process. One of our local peacebuilding experts shares six ways that civil society is enhancing peacebuilding. She hopes that this will help other grassroots actors learn about the attitudes and tools required to lead the country to sustainable peace, thinking of a long-term process and sustainable results that start from the local level. Read more »

30 July 2019

More from the blog