When Nobel Peace Prize strikes a discordant note

Nobel prizes have had their share of controversies. Often, it’s the prizes for literature, economics and peace that cause discordant notes. One could understand why some baulk at a particular writer or an economist getting the award — eligibility in the two areas often being so subjective. But, in recent times, it’s the Nobel Peace Prize that has generated criticism of considerations other than working for peace being a factor.

In 1994, when Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin were the winners, many were sceptical. The 2009 award to Barack Obama, many say, was a bit of a joke given that the citation said he’d done a dashed lot for “international diplomacy and cooperation”. The 2010 prize went to Liu Xiaobo, with the Chinese seeing, well, red. Last year, many were left scratching their heads when the EU won, for being, apparently, “a champion of peace”.

Now, just when chemical weapons à la Syria are an issue, it’s the turn of the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. The timing, as they say, is a bit too sweet. The brave Pakistani girl Malala Yousafzai was said to be a favourite, and reportedly, the Taliban, who shot her, “expressed happiness” when she didn’t get the prize. One would think anything that makes the Taliban unhappy deserves commendation. But maybe that’s not topical enough….