Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

A year ago the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons won a prized award:

"The conventions and the work of the OPCW have defined the use of chemical weapons as a taboo under international law," the Norwegian Nobel Committee said in Oslo. "Recent events in Syria, where chemical weapons have again been put to use, have underlined the need to enhance the efforts to do away with such weapons."

Reference: Global chemical weapons watchdog wins 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.

The OPCW is tasked with implementing the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, the mandate of which is as follows:

(image credit)

OPCW is staffed with dedicated, earnest and well-trained people, and there is no diminishing their efforts:

The OPCW's director-general, Ahmet Uzumcu (AKH'-meht ooh-ZOOM'-joo), said the award was a recognition of the group's work for global peace in the past 16 years.

"But (it's) also an acknowledgement of our staff's efforts, who are now deployed in Syria, who have been, in fact, making a very brave effort there to fulfill their mandate," he told the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK.

Abiding questions

How well does OPCW get at the root of why rogue leaders and predatory tyrants resort to chemical weapons? 

Destroying, preventing, promoting and protecting, as noted in the screen shot, are all crucial actions to take.  But these seem to be necessary, but insufficient, provisions for eliminating chemical weapons altogether.  As long as humankind has the ingenuity, the resources, and the motives for such, I am not so sure that what OPCW is anywhere near enough.  We can laud its tactical efforts, that is, the sweat equity of its staffers, but I wonder how strategic and insightful it is of The Human Algorithm. 

Does such a focus on chemical weapons tacitly sanction the use of so-called conventional weapons of war?

There are organizations that are focused on other specific weapons, such as nuclear:  United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.  But I think we walk the dangerous line of saying that high technology missiles, automatic weapons, and other sophisticated methods of killing are somehow fine.  The US Manhattan Project produced atomic bombs that, like the Nazi Holocaust, reinforced the fact that we members of humankind have the know-how, the willingness, and the motivation to do away with ourselves. 

How do we ever stop ourselves from committing such atrocities against one another, from smaller, everyday scale, to wider regional, even global fighting?  

This is at the heart of what I'm working on.  Sigmund Freud posited aggression as natural (i.e., biological) impulse in people.  In a way, we are made to fight and kill.  It may sound like a silly analogy, but I argue that the very process of slaughtering animals for our meals and the very biting and chewing of food at mealtime are all acts of aggression.  Clearly, then, not all of it ought to be eliminated.  In other words, we ought not turn ourselves into docile beings for the sake of eliminating conflict.  Undoubtedly we cannot, even if we wanted to.

I don't have complete answers or solutions at this time, but I believe that it is important to ask questions earnestly, to challenge constructively, and to converse openly.  I also believe that as much as we laud the notion of teaching others how to fish, there are segments of people in need and we must give them fish.  I see the work of OPCW in the latter vein.  Finally, I believe that we cannot arrive at the right answers or solutions, unless we truly grasp and appreciate our essential nature.  We cannot be other than who or what we are, and to Stephen Covey's exhortation:  Seek first to understand, then to be understood.