- Indonesian military plane crash death toll rises to 74
- Eurogroup turned down Greek bailout extension, says Finnish FinMin Alexander Stubb
- Disappointment creeping in over Modi govt's reform pace: Moody's
- Dholpur Palace: Congress' fresh document says it's a govt property
- Greece will not pay IMF debt on Tuesday: Finance minister
The Nobel committee's choices seem confusing because its methodology is unknown.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded the Peace Prize to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an intergovernmental body which has been in the news for its role in disarming Syria. Last year, controversially, it had honoured the European Union, though its nations had projected military force overseas. Is the world running out of men and women of stature who have an interest in pece? Or are the times so confusing and the world so interconnected that no one is left clear of moral contagion?
The tendency to award the prize to organisations rather than individuals feels like a cop-out, perhaps because the methodology is unknown. Contrast Médecins Sans Frontières (laureates in 1999) with the International Atomic Energy Agency (2005). Or Amnesty International (1977) and George Catlett Marshall (1953, for the Marshall Plan). These are clearly more than choices of value. They are also choices of kind. Whether a candidate is part of the system or a counterpoint to it ought to make a difference. Prizeworthiness cannot be judged on impact alone but must allow for the odds against which it was achieved.