What an irony! Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite, instituted a peace prize to honor a person (or institution) who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” But the announcement of the winner is always followed by a fierce war of words between those who endorse the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and those who don't. So there is no surprise that the choice of the European Union as the peace laureate has been met with derision and disdain on Twitter and Facebook. The Norwegian Peace Council has called for the resignation of Thorbjoern Jagland, the committee's chairman. The objection is not to an organization, instead of an individual, receiving the prize. No, it is more fundamental. The European Union has been awarded the prize for its efforts “to promote peace and democracy in Europe.” Did the EU initiate, ask the critics, any peace congresses? No. Neither has it done anything to reduce standing armies. In fact, the EU has been integral in bolstering armies through the Eurofighter project. It is true, as Jagland said, “Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable.” But UK fought a war against Argentina over Falklands issue. UK and Spain joined the US in waging a war of aggression against Iraq. In fact, the EU — sometimes collectively and sometimes separately — has been involved in several of the bloodiest conflicts of our time, the last being Libya. Are we to suppose that Nobel has only peace in Europe in his mind when he instituted the prize? Did political considerations play a role in the selection? Highly likely, given the disproportionate number of anti-Soviet/Communist dissidents and activists who won peace and literature prizes in the past. Voters in Norway have twice rejected membership in the EU. But Jagland, the head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is a fervent supporter of the bloc. EU, we should remember, is a group that has set its face against giving membership to Turkey. This has strengthened the perception that the bloc wants to remain committed to “the cultural legacy of ancient Greece and Rome, the religious heritage which infused European life,” to use the words of Giscard D'Estaing, a former president of France. This should have worked against the EU at a time when xenophobia, anti-immigrant feelings and isolationism are rising within the mainly Christian nations of Europe. It did not. Still going by Norwegian Committee's record, the EU is not such an outrageous choice. A committee which refused to honor Mahatma Gandhi did not find anything wrong in giving the peace prize to Barack Obama who inherited two wars and escalated one, adding a highly destructive drone dimension to it. To make matters worse, Obama gave an acceptance speech extolling the power of the US military to do good.This was a “war and peace prize,” according to some. Obama is not the only “dove in armor.” There are people like Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Simon Peres, etc. Still, we should be grateful to the Norwegians, should not we, for not bestowing a peace prize on George W. Bush and Tony Blair, the architects of the Iraq war.
