Mary Dejevsky

Sir David Attenborough didn’t deserve the Chatham House Prize

Every November the London based foreign affairs think tank, Chatham House, awards a prize for ‘the most significant contribution to the improvement of international relations in the previous year’. This year, the joint laureates were Sir David Attenborough and the BBC Studios Natural History Unit for the television series Blue Planet II. It is a choice which, as a long-standing member of Chatham House, I regret.

Don’t get me wrong. My misgivings are not about the prize itself, which was designed to raise the think tank’s national and international profile and is now in its 15th year. My doubts stem entirely from this year’s choice of recipients.

The contortions in the official pronouncement betrayed something of the problem. Here is the Director of Chatham House, Dr Robin Niblett, trying to shoehorn Sir David and co. into the criteria set for the prize:

‘Plastic pollution is one of the gravest challenges facing the world’s oceans, and undoubtedly an international issue… Blue Planet II spurred a passionate global response and generated clear behavioural and policy change.’

He went on to cite efforts by the G20, the UK government, the Commonwealth and the UK public to respond.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in