Is Europe a continent of peace and prosperity worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize? When I first heard that the EU had been awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, like many I thought it must be some kind of joke; it seemed such an unlikely and illogical choice. One week on, I am less perplexed, a little amused and somewhat encouraged. Europe was once a continent at war. It was not that long ago: the Second World War is within living memory, wars in the Balkans have left scars that have yet to heal and just this week French President Hollande acknowledged the killings in Paris on 17 October 1961 by police of Algerian protesters, who were then still French citizens engaged in a war of independence. And yet you could be forgiven for thinking that Europe has long been peaceful and comparatively prosperous; it certainly feels that way, and that sense of security is largely due to the existence of the EU and its predecessors, or so the Nobel Committee tells us. “The Union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.” Rather ironically, the Committee also pinpoints the accession of southern European countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal in the 1980s, as it ensured a smooth transition from military dictatorships to modern democracies. That is all well and good, but surely that other Brussels-based organization NATO has played just as important a role in securing peace. Moreover, why now? Why give the EU the Nobel Peace Prize at a time when it is coming apart at the seams, when countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain are choking under the yoke of austerity and that great European project the Euro is lurching from crisis to crisis? Thorbjorn Jagland, the chairman of the Nobel Committee explains that “we saw that the prize could be important in giving a message to the European public of how important it is to secure what they have achieved on this continent.” In other words, a timely reminder of what has been achieved in order to boost support for an increasingly unpopular organization. This from a European country that is not a member of the EU. The Nobel Peace Prize is decided by a committee of five people. First they nominate contenders – there were 231 of them this year – and then they deliberate before voting on a final choice. The five are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. Jagland, the Committee Chairman, is also the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and has long campaigned for Norway to join the EU (the last time Norwegians voted on the issue was in 1994 and EU membership was rejected by 52 percent of voters). Four members of the Committee are proponents of Norway joining the EU. The one Eurosceptic Agot Valle was ill and replaced by a former bishop, Gunnar Stalsett. Le Monde reports that had Valle been present, she would have vetoed the decision. It appears there may be a large dose of domestic politics in awarding the Nobel to the EU. But what exactly is peace? The Nobel Peace Prize has been given to an odd mix of people and organizations over the years. The Oxford English dictionary defines “peace” as “freedom from, or the cessation of war between warring states”. It's hard to see why Barack Obama won it in 2009; what exactly had he done then or now to help the cessation of wars in the world? Granted he pushed the neo-cons of the Bush era out of office and his “yes, we can” attitude did give not just Americans but people all over a sense of newfound hope. Jimmy Carter in 2002 was a more obvious choice, for his work with the Carter Center has focused on alleviating suffering, improving human rights and ending armed conflicts, all of them clear components of anyone's definition of peace. Awarding the prize to Mohamed ElBaradei and the IAEA in 2005 also shows a clear logic: preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a helpful step in securing peace, but seven years after the photos of ElBaradei visiting Iran with his inspectors, as Israel raises yet again the prospect of attacking Iran's nuclear installations, can we really say that it was a good decision? Other choices are less obvious in their interpretation of peace. In 2006 the prize went to Muhammad Yunus for his micro-credit programs in Bangladesh. At first it may not seem that giving small loans to the very poor is a peace-keeping mission, but that is forgetting that peace is something that is constructed over time and that it has three key components: security, cooperation and prosperity. The decision to award the prize to the EU flags up all three, it reminds us that peace in Europe has been achieved not just by the military safety wall that is NATO but by the economic and political integration of people who were once foes. But who will collect the prize? The EU is such a convoluted, cross-cultural, multi-headed administrative monster that it does not have a leader. There was talk of sending children from all 27 states – since the prize was given not just to the EU but to all its citizens. Finally it was decided that the three presidents will go: Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission; Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, and Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament. But who of the three tenors will give the acceptance speech? The EU may have achieved peace but it is a long way from being the strong, effective representative of a United States of Europe that its founders dreamed of more than 50 years ago. — Imane Kurdi is a Saudi writer on European affairs. She can be reached at [email protected]
