- India needs a law to protect Internet: Rahul on Net Neutrality
- A father-daughter angle in latest IPL conflict of interest
- Pak Army announces special force for protecting Chinese citizens
- Modi govt clears projects but where are the orders?
- Crew have ‘verbally’ admitted they are Pak nationals: Coast Guard
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.