Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
News

Anti-Chemical Weapon Group Awarded Nobel Peace Prize 61

Posted by timothy
from the thinking-positive dept.
elashish14 writes "The Nobel Prize Committee has chosen to award the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapon (OPCW) with this year's Peace Prize. The OPCW conducts inspections and oversees the destruction of chemical weapon arsenals. They were established in 1997 and 190 nations have agreed to the treaty. The Nobel Committee's decision was a surprise to many however, who expected Pakistani education activist Malala Yousafzai to receive the award."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Chemical Weapon Group Awarded Nobel Peace Prize

Comments Filter:
  • This whole thing is f**ked up.

    Give the money to ones affected by the CW. Who cares if they, OPCW, needs donations, the state they are disarming should pay for it!

    Nobel Peace Prize my ass. Nobel War Prize

  • ...are on par with Barack Obama, which is to say non-existent.

    But at least they're better than Yasser Arafat or Le Duc Tho.

    • ...are on par with Barack Obama, which is to say non-existent.

      But at least they're better than Yasser Arafat or Le Duc Tho.

      I'm pretty sure that the OPCW would need to be actively manufacturing and selling chemical weapons for that analogy to hold.

      Actually, they seem like a fairly good choice (if, unfortunately, probably one made in knee-jerk response to the recent Syrian incident, rather than any more significant thought). The OPCW mostly does banal, administrative stuff in support of identifying and classifying scheduled compounds and precursors for the purposes of trade controls, and acting as a technical and advocacy grou

      • by dj245 (732906) on Friday October 11, 2013 @07:41PM (#45106125) Homepage

        ...are on par with Barack Obama, which is to say non-existent.

        But at least they're better than Yasser Arafat or Le Duc Tho.

        I'm pretty sure that the OPCW would need to be actively manufacturing and selling chemical weapons for that analogy to hold. Actually, they seem like a fairly good choice (if, unfortunately, probably one made in knee-jerk response to the recent Syrian incident, rather than any more significant thought).

        If it is a hasty decision, then they deserve it even less. Chemical deaths are less than 1% of the deaths in Syria. Tens of thousands have died by conventional means. Someone decides they want to get rid of the chemical weapons and they are suddenly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize?

        It elevates the destruction of a weapon to be of a higher importance than the elimination of war. That isn't what the peace prize should be about. Destroying chemical weapons doesn't mean diddly to the average Syrian in the conflict zone. Chemical weapons are mostly a fear of Western nations in the event they "got out" and into the hands of terrorists. Syrians are right to believe that the West only cares about their own potential safety instead of actually stopping a war.

        I wouldn't have given the prize to Malala either. She can get it when she turns 18 or 21. Her actions have already made her more than deserving, but she is a big enough celebrity as it is. She should finish what is left of her childhood.

        • "I wouldn't have given the prize to Malala either."

          She is, IMNSHO, far more deserving than a nearly nameless group of people who will try to do the job, but miss half of them, and will be forgotten by the time the next GP races results are posted.

          "She can get it when she turns 18 or 21.

          By whose rules? OTOH, that might serve as a mild life insurance policy they'll want to get a large piece of before the taliban kills her.

          "Her actions have already made her more than deserving, but she is a big enough celebr

        • by Anonymous Coward

          But if we elevate certain crimes and certain peoples above others why can't we do it with weapons. I mean if you are black and kill another black person, you might get a couple years in jail. On the other hand if you are black and kill a white girl, or are a white man and kill a black man, you are committing a hate crime, and will likely never see the light of day. It works the same way with homosexuals and jews. You can kill a white guy, but don't kill a homosexual. Esspecialy don't kill a homosexual

        • "If it is a hasty decision, then they deserve it even less. Chemical deaths are less than 1% of the deaths in Syria. Tens of thousands have died by conventional means. Someone decides they want to get rid of the chemical weapons and they are suddenly deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize?"

          My suspicion (based on the apparent complete incompetence and goldfish-calibre historical memory of the Peace Prize selection committee) is that the decision was hasty, and based largely on dramatic (but, as you say, stati
        • She can get it when she turns 18 or 21.

          Part of her merit is that several Talibans have decided she shouldn't turn 18. And the Nobel prizes are not posthumous.

      • they might be a good choice! but after the obama fuckup you would think they would wait for a year or two AFTER the happening before giving the money.

        add to this that this organization is just doing their job and it was other people who chose them to do the job. obama and putin of all fucking people too...

    • Is there any particular reason you mention Le Duc Tho, who declined the award, and not his co-winner who accepted it?

    • ...are on par with Barack Obama, which is to say non-existent.

      But at least they're better than Yasser Arafat or Le Duc Tho.

      ... but still better than say, Henry Kissinger?

    • by M. Baranczak (726671) on Friday October 11, 2013 @09:15PM (#45106529)

      The Nobel Peace Prize is like Soviet Russia: a bad joke that nobody fucking wants to hear anymore. The prize committee should just skip the half-measures and award it jointly to Kim Jong Un, Dick Cheney, and Weird Al Yankovic, then commit group suicide. There's no possible way to recover the prize's reputation at this point, they might as well go out with a bang.

  • . . . but someone has to get credit for it. I say good on them.
  • She's young and driven to do great things, so while giving her a Nobel Prize isn't premature -- oh, she's not done writing this legacy, there's more to come. If she continues doing as she plans, to become a leader in Pakistan when she's older and being an activist for the education of females in the meantime, she'll get another consideration.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I was rooting for Malala or Snowden. Snowden also as a mea culpa for that Obama prize years earlier.

      But oh no, can't call out their own mistake, gotta award it to some obscure group like hipsters would do. Bullshit.

    • by amiga3D (567632)

      I think they decided not to give it to her to save her life. The nut jobs are still talking about killing her for daring to talk about girls getting an education. If they'd given her the award it would have just been like throwing gas on a fire.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      With all due respect, Malala's greatest accomplishment until today is getting shot and having it spinned all over the news. While talking and raising issues is important, practical contribution to general peace is far from having been established (yes, Obama peace prize was a major mistake). Her wiki page has only 3 meagre paragraphs on political career and activism which is not at all on par with Nobels of 2010 and 2011 who would be comparable to her. She's too young and she has much more to prove. I belie

  • how about this? a peace prize for the one who designs Dyno-Mite! JJ.
  • by bitt3n (941736) on Friday October 11, 2013 @07:23PM (#45106033)
    Should we really be celebrating a group that supports the weaponization of anti-chemicals? I've seen enough Star Trek to know the dangers that anti-matter poses to us all.
  • by HiThere (15173) <charleshixsnNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on Friday October 11, 2013 @07:41PM (#45106123)

    I'm sorry, but ever since Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize over Viet-nam I've declined to consider it as anything but a badge of shame.

  • If the Nobel Peace Price was everything that it should stand for, I would still vote Malala and would deride this choice over her. But between having in the past chosen the likes of Kissinger, and oh so prematurely, Obama, I say good for her for not being chosen. The real question is: is it not sad that we need a prize for being a good human being at all?
    • by khallow (566160)

      The real question is: is it not sad that we need a prize for being a good human being at all?

      Given how easy it is to be a bad human and how hard it is to be a good human, I'd say it's not sad.

  • In a fundamental sense, aren't all weapons used against chemicals? Well, except weapons used against energy beings, I guess.
  • With all the respect that surely deserves OPCW, this prize,in this moment, only makes more evident how low has fallen the institution of the Nobel Prize and how much is sold the committee to the powers that be. It was used to promote the US "intervention" in Syria business, while they wont ever destroy their own chemical, biological, or nuclear arsenal, for something that probably where rebel chemical weapons given by foreing powers.

    In the other hand, the biggest event in this decade that is surely is ma

  • While I am not questioning that the OPCW does really great work to make the world a better place, my disappointment with this selection is that it is simply uninspiring. The Nobel committee had nominations for numerous individuals who, at great risk to their own livelihood and safety, did extraordinary things to stand up for what they knew was right and just. Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to such a person would affirm that even today, one individual doing the right thing can make a difference that is felt
  • Let's see: OPCW are doing a great job. Nobody denies this. But they wouldn't be in Syria right now if Putin hadn't convinced Assad to get rid of CWs. OPCW are just executors here, while the real political drive to dismantle the Syrian CWs came from Putin. Sure, in this good cop - bad cop game, Obama played the aggressive bad cop and Putin the pacific good cop, so both would deserve the Nobel Peace Prize because of the result. However, since Obama already got it, Putin would have been the logical choice this
    • by Turbio (1814644)

      There is no good cop bad cop game. Syria is Iran's only ally. Obama wants to change it's government and weaken Iran. Putin wants to keep it's government, because otherwise he would lose strength in the region. If Israel would have used chemical weapons, the roles would be inverted.

      • by Shimbo (100005)

        There is no good cop bad cop game. Syria is Iran's only ally. Obama wants to change it's government and weaken Iran. Putin wants to keep it's government, because otherwise he would lose strength in the region.

        Well, you can't really blame Putin for preferring an evil dictator that sort of keeps the country together to letting the crazies in. It's pretty much what the West did with Saddam Hussein.

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Working...