Galery

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

The 2012 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded today in Oslo. Dozens of leaders of European countries travelled to Norway to attend the ceremony and to receive the prize, which was awarded to the European Union.

The news provoked strong reactions even two months ago, when the names of this year's laureates were announced. Euro sceptics from the Czech President to international human rights organizations and mainly leftist parties and organizations determine the prize as a mistake and farce, each of them pointing out different arguments.

GRReporter sought the opinion of two analysts: the history professor Thanos Veremis and political analyst Plamen Tonchev.

“In my opinion, the decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union is right and it is educational too: Europe must be kept as the European Union. I think this is the practice followed in awarding the prizes in general. When Barack Obama had been awarded long before it was clear what the course of his foreign policy would be, the prize was a way to tell him to be more peaceful. The Nobel prizes awarding and the peace prize above all follow this tradition.

The European Union avoided the outbreak of a new military conflict, whereas wars between European countries were very common in all ages in the past and especially during the 20th century. The European Union received the prize for its charitable activity especially in Palestine as well. It has been funding it continuously and I think that their survival is due primarily to Europe,” states the Greek historian.

The crisis is an additional reason for the existence of the European Union and the strengthening of its institutions.

In his opinion, the financial crisis the European Union is going through is actually a chance to move to a real European integration - not only economical but also political. "Undoubtedly, we are currently going through a very severe economic crisis. Many analysts doubt that the European Union will survive. But I think the crisis is an additional reason for the existence of the European Union and the strengthening of its institutions."

History shows that crises act positively in this regard. What is necessary now, at least in respect of the Economic and Monetary Union, is stronger institutions: that is to say a central bank with more competencies, a common economic and fiscal policy and why not a strong central government, a federation. This is something that can be born from the current crisis despite the contrary opinion of Great Britain and the other states unwilling to participate in such a system."

Plamen Tonchev analyzes the arguments "for" and "against" the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union. According to him, the organization deserves this prize after being created in order to prevent a new military conflict on the continent, on which two world wars had started. Another argument in favour of the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is the European Union financial support to third world countries, where it is a major donor.

"The European Union as a whole is a positive example for other regions of the world. This is not stated in the reasoning of the Nobel Committee, but it is true that the European Union is a positive example in terms of its experience in economic and, to a large extent, political integration as well. It is no coincidence that the SEAN member countries of Southeast Asia have set a goal to create by 2015 an economic community similar to the European common market, which was established in the 1980s. There are similar initiatives for regional integration in Africa and South America as well. But given that the economic cooperation somewhat accommodates the differences between neighbouring countries, I think that the European experience is really positive and beneficial to other regions of the world.

The European Union as a whole is a positive example for other regions of the world. This is not stated in the reasoning of the Nobel Committee, but it is true that the European Union is a positive example in terms of its experience in economic and, to a large extent, in political integration as well.

Another argument is that the European Union is a leading force in the negotiations on climate change. As part of the Kyoto agreement, all European countries are firmly bound to comply with these provisions."

The arguments against awarding the prize

Plamen Tonchev criticizes the position of the three previous laureates who took a stand against the granting of the financial amount. "I read carefully the objections voiced by South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was the laureate of the prize for fighting the Apartheid in 1994. Other laureates voiced similar objections too: Mairead Maguire from Northern Ireland and the Argentine Adolfo Perez Esquivel. They insist that the amount that goes along with the prize should not be paid and state that the European Union contravenes the values ​​that are associated with the prize because Europe relies on military force in order to achieve security. I think this criticism is excessive. When we achieve a world without conflicts, a world of harmony and love, then their arguments will probably be valid. But I fear that we will not be able to avoid the use of military force in resolving conflicts in the foreseeable future at least."

On the other hand, the political analyst supports to some extent the arguments of human rights organizations like Amnesty International. "Far-right parties are rising in Europe today and racist and xenophobic rhetoric is reinforcing apparently as a result of the increasing immigration. Greece itself with its Golden Dawn is a sad example of this. However, immigration is a natural and normal process caused by economical inequality around the world. While there is inequality, there will be migration. I think that Europe simply has to accept this idea and obtain a meaningful and coherent strategy. In this sense, I accept the arguments of those who criticize the European Union for violating the human rights and the rights of immigrants, and of Roma and other minorities.

Democracy can be seriously criticized in many European countries in general. Greece and Italy are the examples of this. Corruption is also a serious problem in a number of European countries and this affects the quality of democracy in Europe."

This prize is symbolic. This is a political initiative, which by no means can provide Europe with a solution to its internal structural and political problems. This is an encouragement, a warning and recognition, but Europe simply has to do the job with or without the peace prize.

The problems caused by the lack of a common foreign policy in the European Union have repeatedly become apparent: "I also accept the argument that the wars in former Yugoslavia have shown how Europe is not prepared to deal with a purely European conflict. The Arab Spring last year is also an example that should be considered. The curious thing is that it started from Tunisia, where the French, who are supposed to know the specific country very well, were the most surprised Europeans. It turns out that the European Union does not know how to react to the Arab Spring and to the request for a more developed democracy in the Arab world.

Another criticism that I accept is that this crisis has brought to the surface problems that European integration could not and cannot probably resolve completely. The lack of solidarity in the centrifugal forces of the European Union, which have recently become more pronounced, shows that the economic cooperation in itself is simply not enough. A deeper political integration is needed too - for example, a single foreign policy, a common policy on immigration and others. I do not know whether this is possible in today's European Union.

Why is it happening now?

"The prize may have been awarded to the European Union on other occasions: after the establishment of the EEC in the 1950s, after the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990 for example. Obviously, it aims to encourage the European Union in a historical moment that is difficult for Europe. The economic crisis is causing serious differences related to a number of issues and puts to the test the entire European Union as a formation. More than a few predict the collapse of the eurozone and the European Union itself.

I see three possible interpretations of the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee. The first option is that the Nobel Prize comes in recognition of the overall contribution of the European Union. It is something like awarding Oscars to adult actors at the end of their careers, because they did not win the prize on specific occasions. The second option is that it comes as an incentive and a message especially to Euro sceptics who challenge many of the important achievements of the European Union. The third option is that the prize is a kind of a warning to the European Union, I would say to the European political elite, which demonstrates short-sightedness. It puts narrow political interests first and ignores the long-term prospects of Europe as a whole."

The political scientist said in conclusion, "This prize is symbolic. This is a political initiative, which by no means can provide Europe with a solution to its internal structural and political problems. This is an encouragement, a warning and recognition, but Europe simply has to do the job with or without the peace prize."