And the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize is... the EU!

Post Reply New Topic

3:19PM EDT October 12. 2012 -

BERLIN – Critics reacted with anger and derision Friday at the decision to award the European Union with the Nobel Peace Prize amid a financial crisis that has threatened unity among members.

"I think it's an absolute disgrace," Nigel Farage, leader of Britain's U.K. Independence Party, which wants to see the United Kingdom break away from the European Union, told the BBC. "I think it brings the Nobel Prize into total disrepute."

The Nobel Prize Committee praised the EU, saying it had for more than "six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation" following its formation after World War II. It was not known who would accept the prize for the EU.

"The stabilizing part played by the European Union has helped to transform a once-torn Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace," Nobel committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said.

European leaders who favor the continuation of the EU praised the decision. German Chancellor Angela Merkel extolled the recognition of the "idea of European unity."

"To award the prize to a government, because the EU is a government, I think is a bit unusual," said Damien Chalmers, professor of European Union law at the London School of Economics.

"People have lost as a consequence of decisions being taken by this government. … It's a danger of value being attached to the government itself, which should be questioned and criticized," he said.

Alfred Nobel created his prizes to recognize people in a variety of disciplines who "in the preceding year have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." The Noble Peace Prize is to go to whomever "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."

The first prize was awarded in 1901 jointly to Henry Dunant, founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Frederic Passy, founder and president of the first French peace society. Since then, it has been bestowed largely on individuals who have fought for freedom, peace and democracy.

In 1991, activist Aung San Suu Kyi won the award for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights in Myanmar, and in 1993, former South African president Nelson Mandela won the award jointly with Frederick Willem de Klerk for their work for the "peaceful termination of the apartheid regime."

But recent awards by the panel in Oslo that decides the recipient has prompted criticism from some who say the prize is being used to bolster political figures and movements that the panelists support, and has little to do with peace.

In 2007, the award went to former U.S. vice president Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at a time when skeptical voices were raising questions about the evidence for the theory of man-made global warming.

In 2009, President Obama received the award for "his vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons" and his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy." Obama had been president for 10 months when the announcement was made.

"First Al Gore, then Obama, now this. Parody is redundant," tweeted Daniel Hannan from Britain's Conservative Party.

Some analysts said that the EU deserved the award.

"On one level, it's a reasonably deserved award, because if you compare the previous several centuries since the EU was created, its members have avoided all kinds of conflict," said Iain Begg, an associate fellow in the European program at the London think tank Chatham House.

The EU was originally formed with the aim of unifying democratic countries in Europe during the Cold War with the former Soviet Union, and some of its earliest backers saw it as way to hem in Germany's tendency to dominate the continent. German military aggression against European neighbors led to both world wars of the 20th century.

The EU was also a way of creating a single European market. Now the EU consists of 27 member states, with 17 of those also part of the eurozone, or the nations that use the euro as a currency.

Conservative lawmaker and former foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind called the decision slightly eccentric.

"If they want to give the prize for preserving the peace in Europe, they should divide it between NATO and the EU," he said. "Until the end of the Cold War, it was NATO more than anyone else that kept the peace."

NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, is a military alliance of European democracies and the United States that challenged the former Soviet Union's attempts to dominate the continent. The committee said the EU did preserve the peace.

"Today, war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners," the committee said.

Some said it was a strange time to give the EU a $1.2 million prize as it struggles to maintain unity through a financial crisis. Polls and recent referendums show that many Europeans oppose further political integration with the EU to prevent erosion of sovereignty and to avoid responsibility for indebted nations.

The crisis has caused tensions among member states and led to a resurgence of extremist groups as the southern European nations have sunk further into debt, requiring further bailouts from other countries.

"Haven't they had their eyes open?" Farage said f the Nobel committee.

Europe is facing "increasing violence and division," with mass protests from Madrid to Athens over tax hikes and job cuts and growing resentment of Germany, the union's rich and powerful economic anchor, he said.

Chalmers said it appears inappropriate for the Nobel committee to use the prize to back one side of a political debate.

"It wasn't something I was particularly comfortable with," Chalmers said. "I think people should be able to contest the EU and its role in the crisis, and that's just democratic politics. To enter that debate is not something you would think the Nobel Prize committee need to do."

But he also felt the committee should make controversial decisions.

"If they play safe, they won't fulfill the mission of the Nobel Prize. … (The EU) has been able to invent an ideal of coexistence, which is something to be valued and something that would have been unrealizable 30 years ago," he said.

Though the award is given in Oslo, skepticism against the EU runs high in Norway, which is not a member of the eurozone and where popular opinion is firmly against membership. Norwegian voters rejected joining the EU twice, in 1972 and 1994.

The confederation has not prevented wars outside its borders in Europe. When the deadly Balkans wars erupted in the 1990s, the EU failed to agree on a way to stop them. It was only after the United States entered the fray militarily and after more than 100,000 lives were lost in Bosnia that the violence subsided there and, several years later, in Kosovo.

Contributing: The Associated Press

If you're going to do the "least deserving" winners, you should add Kissinger, Arafat, Mother Teresa and quite a few others.

Mother Teresa did indeed deserve it. The peace prize doesn't mean that you're flawless or that you do not have skeletons in your closet, but that you've succeded in influenting a lot of people and making the world a better place. Pope John Paul II or Mahatma Gandhi deserved the prize more, though.

With that being said, in the 21. century, the peace prize has been more about economy and politics rather than who makes the world a better place. Any other country responsible for the peace prize would do the same thing, though.

On-topic: Al Gore deserves it the least of anyone in the 21. century. If anyone wonders, though, one of the most influential socialists in Norway has suggested three times in our century that Fidel Castro should get the prize.

On-topic Counterclaim: Al Gore and the IPCC deserve it the most of anyone in the 21. century (honourable mention to the IAEA and ElBaradei, though).

There are far more severe environmental issues out there than global warming (which for the most part isn't manmade). Unfortunately, these issues won't sell hybrid cars at far higher prices than a regular, gasoline driven car.

BS.

And your argument is valid because?

If Al Gore wants to spend his time doing something useful, he should advocate for clean water in Africa, securing pesticide plants so that the Bhopal disaster doesn't repeat itself, advise poor countries to switch from coal power to nuclear power or stop coorporations from dumping mercury into the water.

Even if global warming is manmade (which it mostly isn't), the lives of 20,000 people who've lost their lives in Bhopal are more worth than the polar bears on the North Pole.

Oh, wait... now they can't take our money in the form of emission tradings or hybrid cars with expensive electric engines and batteries we don't really need. Furthermore, coorporations would have to take responsibility for the sh!t they dump into the 3. world countries.

BS!

If you continue to display such a disregard for the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change, then why the hell should I even bother reading your posts?

Ad hominem is the best you can do? Again CFC is 15,000 more damaging to the climate than CO2. Why do Al Gore ignore this? only 0,5% of the annual CO2 emissions come from cars, 1,5% from coal plants and 1% from other manmade sources. The rest (97%) is because of mother nature (and a lot of the rising CO2 rates are because volcanic activity has increased a lot since the early 19th century).

Regardless of what you think, you can always find scientists who agree with you. F*ck Al Gore's peace prize or the Toyota Prius, this is interesting stuff:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

You clearly have no idea of what ad hominem really is, but I do not have the years required nor the desire to indulge you by attempting to explain the concept.

Read this (And I mean *read* it)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... l.pdf+html

How can you seriously think that scientists have overlooked the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you live in some sort of cocoon reality where *you* know everything and people who have devoted their entire scientific careers to studying climate change are idiots?

Peer reviewed science > random internet petition.

Oh, and...

BS

Now please stop trolling my thread, troll.

I'm well aware of what ad hominem is. In fact, I can name a lot of the fallacies you're using right now.



First of all "expertise" is not synonymous with number of climate publications. Most likely, these scientists have publications because they agree with the UN climate panel. You're using the ad populum fallacy here; truth is not democratic, never was and never will be. Global warming research is a dead end similar to the steady state theory of the universe, which "most" scientists believed in 70 years ago.

Again, you haven't commented on my link... more than 9,000 of the scientists signing this document has a PhD. Everyone (~31.500) has at least a college degree in science. They're not going to get their voices heard, though, because most Americans and Europeans believe that the baby seals will die if the temperature increases by one degree celcius within the year 2100 or that the CO2 levels have always been in a perfect equilibrium.

How can you seriously think that scientists have overlooked the sources of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you live in some sort of cocoon reality where *you* know everything and people who have devoted their entire scientific careers to studying climate change are idiots?

I guess 9,000 Americans with a PhD are idiots, then. I have a the mandatory math, physics, chemistry and environment subjects required to get a degree in science (be that a B,S, or a PhD). Al Gore does not.

Biased article that shows what the author wants to show < independent thinking scientists (you know, the kind who were at one point in history riddiculed for believing that the universe had originated from something, that bats used echolation to navigate or that the Higgs boson existed).