2012 Nobel Peace Prize

[Alexander's Horse]

The Guardian got it right for once:

"One criticism of the Nobel prize committee's decision to award the prize to the EU I have heard is that is a little bit like a lifetime achievement Oscar: at least 20 years too late, and only really brought about by the imminent death of the recipient."

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

The European Union didn't prevent war. The threat of invasion by the Soviet Union, and the massive curbstomping of Germany by the United States and the Soviet Union in World War II prevented that.

The European Union is an undemocratic waste of everyone's time and money.

Guess it's ruled out of the Nobel Prize for Economics, in that case. Which this isn't.

Incidentally the Soviet Union hasn't been around for 20 years, Russia has in the meantime been embroiled in conflicts with satellite states, and the EU remains at peace with itself.

Sure, loads of people might dislike the EU, and for sound reasons- but there's more weight behind this award than many others in recent years.

[Alexander's Horse]

I know something about this - the Norwegian PM is mad - he had a role in Obama's nomination too.

[Zevico]

Correlation is not causation, Bugs. The EU's nation states may be in a state of peace but that does not mean thy have the EU to thank for it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

We can't entirely rule out the 60 years of peace as merely coincidental- but it takes a seriously blinkered viewpoint to consider that to be probable.

[kentonio]

It's probably a stretch to say that the peace is purely down to the EU, but it certainly helps having countries working and communicating together so closely. Especially when the prosperity of all the nations within the group are linked together.

[Wezil]

It speaks volumes about the recent history of the Nobel Peace Prize that it's just been awarded to an organisation founded on notions of ending a tradition of war among its members stretching back over time immemorial, which has succeeded in doing just that over 60+ years (an unprecedented duration of peace), and people are surprised by it.

I’m pretty sure the Nobel peace prize committee just bought itself a regular spot on Saturday Night Live. How could it award a peace prize to Europe – yes, all of Europe — based on the fact that it’s not at war with itself, and not become a target of satire?

It’s true that Europe didn’t used to be a peaceful place. Starting roughly about the time someone invented the spear, one part of Europe has been trying to impose its will on other parts of Europe. Julius Caesar made his name by battering his way around Gaul, Hispania and Germania, forcibly introducing them to the benefits of Roman civilization. It’s hardly stopped since then. There’s been a French empire, Spanish empire, British empire, Austrian empire and a Holy Roman empire. Various popes spent much of the past two millennia dabbling in the fine arts of warfare, siding with one king or another based on how much loot might be hauled back to the Vatican. English kings measured themselves by how much of France they could seize before the French seized it back; Germany, in all its iterations, could never make up its mind between conquering the French, conquering the Poles, fighting the Russians or taking on the whole lot, all at one time. The only time no one was at war was when they were all too exhausted from being at war all the time.

Hitler seems to have solved that problem. The insanity of the war he provoked, and the cost it entailed for everyone involved, seems to have eliminated Europe’s taste for each other’s blood. Military technology has played a big part in that: when killing gets too easy and efficient on all sides, meaning the likelihood of invasion is that everyone ends up dead and the aggressor country ends up in ashes, the glory of trouncing the country next door loses some of its lustre. Besides, given the state of the European economy, it’s doubtful that any of the 17 European Union countries could afford to raise an army; if they wanted to, they’d probably have to borrow money from the European bank, which might be expected to say no, given the circumstances.

You could also argue that, while giving up the military option, Europeans have seized on a far more effective means of subduing one another: economic domination. The EU has spent the past several years establishing firm lines between the “have” states and the “have not” states. Greece is “have not” (and may be on the road to “have nothing”.) Spain and Ireland are “had but have not”. Italy is “should have a lot, but keeps electing morons”. And guess which is the big “have” country? Three guesses, and the capital is Berlin. Think the others haven’t noticed?

Today, the notion of Italy invading Spain, or the Dutch royal family seizing the British throne, is unimaginable. Austria, once one of the world’s great powers, is now a small Alpine nation that’s a threat to nobody. Obviously this is a good thing; being friends is better than being enemies. But is that reason to give it a peace prize? Canada has never started a war with anyone, anywhere, so where’s our prize? Switzerland washed its hands of war a century ago and remained neutral through both world wars. Costa Rica doesn’t even have an army. How about a peace prize for that?

This whole peace prize thing is getting weirder by the year anyway. In 2009 it went to Barack Obama, for reasons even Obama couldn’t explain. Since then his administration has been picking off terrorists with drones with gay abandon. In 2007 it went to
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore, because why? Because alternative energy is peaceful? Because you can’t stoke a nuclear weapon with solar power? Beats me. You get the feeling the committee finds itself facing a deadline, can’t make a decision, and someone says, “The hell with it, let’s just pick a name out of the hat.” This year some scamp had scribbled “European Union” on a piece of paper and slipped it in with the others, and that’s the slip they drew.

Maybe it’s more complicated than that. But you wouldn’t know it from this year’s winner.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/12/kelly-mcparland-hey-nobel-peace-prize-committee-canada-isnt-at-war-either/

[C0ckney]

It's probably a stretch to say that the peace is purely down to the EU, but it certainly helps having countries working and communicating together so closely. Especially when the prosperity of all the nations within the group are linked together.

it's not that the EU (and its antecedents) are completely irrelevant to peace in europe. it's rather that it (they) come well down a list of factors. the most important factors in european peace would be:

a) the neutering of germany
b) the replacement of the axis powers' governments with liberal democracies.
c) the soviet threat*
d) NATO

so you can say that the EU (and its antecedents) helped countries to work together and communicate and that is entirely correct. however, that is not evidence for a cause and effect relationship between the EU and the lack of wars in western europe for 60 years, because in a world without the EU, all the other factors i mentioned would still exist.

* before the world wars, the western european powers competed for global supremacy. after ww2, this was no longer the case. instead western europe found itself sandwiched between the americans and the soviets, who were the great powers. a common enemy with the ability to completely destroy the world was a very strong motivation for the european powers to not fight amongst themselves.

[Wezil]

Based upon the argument given, NATO would have been a better pick.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Hitler seems to have solved that problem. The insanity of the war he provoked, and the cost it entailed for everyone involved, seems to have eliminated Europe’s taste for each other’s blood. Military technology has played a big part in that: when killing gets too easy and efficient on all sides, meaning the likelihood of invasion is that everyone ends up dead and the aggressor country ends up in ashes, the glory of trouncing the country next door loses some of its lustre. Besides, given the state of the European economy, it’s doubtful that any of the 17 European Union countries could afford to raise an army; if they wanted to, they’d probably have to borrow money from the European bank, which might be expected to say no, given the circumstances.

Did the Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia war not make the news in the US? It's a charming little notion that the risk of war went away for good after 1945, but not really supported by reality?

[DaShi]

The Peace Prize has always been the most subjective of what is a very subjective award.

[Al B. Sure!]

QFT

You're anti-Kissinger?

Oh because of the whole not pro-Israel thing? You going to call Kissinger an anti-Semite, too?

[Wezil]

Did the Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia war not make the news in the US? It's a charming little notion that the risk of war went away for good after 1945, but not really supported by reality?

So you didn't have 60 years of peace then?

You can't have it both ways.

[Hauldren Collider]

You're anti-Kissinger?

Oh because of the whole not pro-Israel thing? You going to call Kissinger an anti-Semite, too?

I'm not anti-Kissinger at all. I just don't think he was a peaceful person.

[Hauldren Collider]

We can't entirely rule out the 60 years of peace as merely coincidental- but it takes a seriously blinkered viewpoint to consider that to be probable.

NATO

EDIT: nevermind, like three posters beat me to this.