I know that this is a delayed reaction
of mine but after reading a lot of negative responses from several
people, including the former Polish president Lech Walesa, who had
won the prize in 1983 and after such responses, I couldn't refrain
myself from not expressing an opinion on this decision. In fact I
felt that Lech Walesa's whole argument of people in the EU getting
paid to do the job to be meaningless – that is the case with most
Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Some might dismiss this article as 'an
article from an ill informed young and naïve foreigner' and
for all you know, you may be right in doing so.
I was
aghast, back in 2009 when the Norwegian committee decided to award
the prestigious prize to the US President Barack Obama, only because
he was the president of the United States, who had been in office
only for ten months, back then and had hardly achieved anything and
the only thing he had done till then was that he made a lot of empty
promises. At that juncture, it made me wonder about the other
potential individuals / organisations who could have been given the
prize and there was one very obvious candidate – European Union, an
organisation who have been promoting peace in Europe for several
decades, unlike Obama's ten month tenure.
I
shall not discuss too much of EU's history but today, after six
decades of tireless effort, Europe is largely united with the
exception of some Eastern European and non-Baltic former soviet
nations. EU is almost like a federal country, with 27 states (28 in
another nine months with Croatia joining the union). It has most
features of a sovereign state such as a common currency(in 17
countries),
visa
free access, a broad legal framework with minor differences in
individual member states (similar to the United States), even acts as
an observer for several similar regional unions and also many other
aspects but for a common military.
Europe
could've been the epicentre of another world war yet again owing to
its proximity to the Warsaw Pact countries but since the fall of the
iron curtain, the former communist nations were welcomed with open
arms and today, countries like Poland, Estonia among several others
to the east of the iron curtain are an integral part of the European
Union.
There
are several such regional / continental organisations and to take an
example regarding such a union, I'd take SAARC (South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation), which has eight member states,
with a significantly higher combined territory than that of European
Union. However, SAARC, or for that matter, any other organisations
haven't achieved even close to what EU has achieved and going back to
the SAARC example, it is probably the most insignificant union –
all countries have different currencies and it is nearly unimaginable
for a national of one member state to acquire a visa of another
member state, leave alone free access. This is sadly the case with
nearly every other supposed regional union as well.
So, to
the question, whether European Union has promoted peace and
democracy, the answer is obviously yes. When the Union was formed, it
was less than a decade since France and Germany had been on different
sides during the WW 2 but today, it is nearly unimaginable to even
think about the possibility of the two nations waging a war against
each other. The fact that the pre-requisite to join the Union is to
fulfil the conditions of Copenhagen criteria would imply that there
are certain codes in the country which uphold the values such as
democracy and freedom – and many countries have done that in order
to reap the benefits of being a part of the Union – a direct
indication that EU has promoted peace. But for that, the Schengen
agreement along with several other treaties and agreements has
ensured free movement of labour, resources and capital within the
Union. But for that, there are obviously several other aspects which
the EU has achieved and it may not be appropriate to state them all
in this article; moreover, these are the two most obvious things
visible to an outsider like myself.
This
decision by the Nobel committee has attracted criticism mainly
because of the timing of the award – at a time when Greece, Spain
and some more countries are facing an economic turmoil but what
people must keep in mind before making such remarks is that EU hasn't
received a prize for economics, it was for peace and it is evident
that they've achieved peace, over these six decades. However, to live
up to its expectations on receiving this award, there must be an end
to this crisis- after all, no economic crisis lasts forever; even the
Great Depression was overcome, and incidentally, one of the worst-hit
nations (Germany) of that depression is today a member of the Union.
This is certainly a challenge for EU which is bound to be met.
In
future, I'd like to see the EU becoming a much larger union and
perhaps, this may even sound Utopian, but I'd like to see the Union
amassing the entire Council of Europe under one banner. It'd
certainly take time and effort but it is worth doing so. I've always
been an admirer of Europeans and their culture – for they've been
the pioneers of most revolutionary ideas and EU is another one such
idea, which has set an example for the world.
I'd
conclude with the words of the Belgian Prime Minister Elio di Rupo -
'this choice shows that the European project continues to
inspire the world today. The European Union was originally the dream
of people and politicians in search of peace and prosperity for all
citizens. It has become a strong symbol of cooperation and progress.
Europe, a continent that was torn by terrible wars, thanks to the
European Union is an example for the world of peaceful dialogue and
conflict prevention.'
Have a nice day,
Andy