The term "peace" has narrower and broader connotations. In its narrower sense, it means absence of war. The broader meaning of peace is ensuring social harmony, human security, meaning freedom from want and absence of mental anxiety.

In its narrowest meaning of peace, For example, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres were awarded the Peace Prize in 1994.

Broad meaning of peace
In recent years, the award of the Peace Prize demonstrates that the Nobel committee has given a broad meaning to the term "peace."

Therefore, it appears that persons or organizations that meet the above criteria in broader sense of the term "peace" and have made continuous efforts towards creating or restoring such a state of harmony in unique way are eligible for the prize. For example, Mother Teresa received the Peace Prize in 1979 for her work with poor people in Calcutta.

The Nobel committee also has awarded the prize to persons or organizations which make people aware of the importance of a burning issue that is crucial for global peace, stability, and sustainability.

That is why, it was the environment in 2004 when the Kenyan environmentalist, Ms. Wangari Maathai, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 2003, it was the issue of human rights and Iranian lawyer, Shirin Ebadi received the Nobel Peace Prize.

On the consideration of broad meaning of peace, it can be argued that Grameen Bank or BRAC deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for their unremitting efforts towards securing the mother of all fundamental human rights -- the alleviation of poverty and uplift of quality of life of poor people. The two institutions have come up with novel ideas and programmes for poor people, especially for women, that have been replicated in many developing countries. The heads of the two institutions are great pioneers in social entrepreneurship and have provided a model and inspiration to a new generation of social activists.

Peace Prize as criticism
It is noted that the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize to former President of the US, Jimmy Carter, was considered as disapproval of some of the foreign policy direction of the Bush administration, because President Carter had always opposed the gung-ho foreign policy of the Bush administration.

Many believe that in 2003, Iranian Shirin Ebadi was awarded the Peace Prize for standing up against human right abuses in Iran.

In 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi received the Prize for fighting in a non-violent way for democracy in Myanmar (Burma)

This year, pre-empting any criticism, the Nobel committee chairman, Ole Danbolt Mojoes, said the 2005 Peace Prize was not meant as a veiled criticism of the US, often at odds with Dr. El Baradei on Iraq. He said: "This is not a kick in the legs to any country."

In the light of El Baradei's position in the Security Council before the Iraqi invasion in March 2003 in expressing suspicion of existence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, awarding the prize to IAEA and its head is seen by many as a criticism of US policy towards the IAEA's objectivity in carrying out its task in limiting nuclear weapons.

Some argue that the prize also points finger at Iran's nuclear programme where IAEA has not yet fully satisfied whether Iran has disclosed everything to the IAEA inspectors. That is why Iran's spokesman reportedly said that "he had no comments to make" on the prize given to IAEA.

Role of the IAEA
The IAEA was created in 1957 by the UN as a watchdog to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Since 1970, it has been the verifier of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), taking its inspectors, drawn from all countries including Bangladesh, to hot spots, such as, in Iraq, North Korea, and Iran, because these countries are members of the NPT.

The IAEA inspectors cannot, however, visit the nuclear weapons states which are not parties to the NPT, such as India, Israel, and Pakistan. North Korea withdrew from the NPT under Article X of the Treaty.

Critics of IAEA
IAEA and ElBaradei have their critics. Many question in what way did IAEA contribute to peace?

Furthermore, IAEA actively supports spread of peaceful nuclear energy. Many argue that support and assistance to nuclear plants for peaceful uses by IAEA may lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons since the technology for the two are the same.

Many peace activists also argue that the IAEA has been simply doing its job and there is nothing to show that it actively pursued any kind of peace programme. Therefore IAEA does not deserve the Peace Prize for undertaking its routine tasks.

They argue there are a number of peace organizations that should been awarded the prize, for example, Hiroshima's International Peace Disarmament organization that has become the centre of peace and disarmament movement against nuclear weapons.

Conclusion
The two institutions -- Grameen Bank and BRAC -- have pioneered their creative and innovative social engineering work in areas that had not earlier been conceived of.

Many observers believe that in the light of their substantive record of work and receipt of many international prizes and awards, it is time that either Grameen Bank or BRAC receive the Peace Prize.

Some speculate that either of them did not yet receive the Peace Prize because some of their programmes go against the moorings or concepts of the capitalist world. It could be argued that the very fact that either of the two institutions has not yet been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize does not speak well for the Nobel committee.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.