And the award goes to...

A Palestinian woman mourns her son who was killed in an Israeli air strike in Gaza on October 14.-SAID KHATIB/AFP

The award of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union, which is mired in multiple economic crises and has a long history of collusion with the U.S hegemonic policies in Europe and Asia, evokes outrage and derision.

The decision to award this years Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union (E.U.) has been welcomed in European capitals but greeted with surprise bordering on derision in other parts of the world. The prestigious award has been given at a time when the E.U. is buffeted by multiple economic crises in its member states. The euro is under increasing threat as countries such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain are caught in an economic quagmire. Many Europeans in fact blame the E.U. headquarters in Brussels for the current state of affairs. Several commentators compared the E.U. to some other controversial recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, such as President Barack Obama and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Obama was ostensibly given the prize as an encouragement to steer a different course from that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. The Peace Prize, instead, seems to have given the U.S. President the licence to even outdo his predecessors in his militaristic exploits. The Guantanamo Bay prison continues to function, while the use of drones has increased several times over under Obama. His military policies, including the war in Libya, have had the support of the E.U.

Historical achievements

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, while announcing the award, focussed on the historical achievements of the E.U., especially its role in promoting peace and reconciliation. Democracy and human rights in a continent that had emerged from the ravages of the Second World War. The committee warned that the disintegration of the E.U. would see an ominous return to extremism and nationalism. It recalled the terrible sufferings of World War Two as well as the three wars fought between Germany and France over a period of 70 years and concluded that today a war between the two countries is inconceivable.

Thorbjrn Jagland, the head of the Nobel Committee, said that the main message is that we keep in mind what we have achieved on the continent and not let the continent go into disintegration again. Incidentally, Norway itself is not a member of the E.U. Norwegians voted against joining in two referendums, in 1972 and again in 1994.

Jos Manuel Barroso, the head of the European Commission, said that the prize was awarded to all the 500 million citizens of the E.U., adding that the E.U. had reunited a continent split by the Cold War. After the end of the Cold War, much to the alarm of Moscow, the E.U., in goose-step with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), started spreading eastward, incorporating states which until the late 1980s were members of the Comecon and the Warsaw Pactthe economic and military groupings respectively of former socialist bloc countries. The E.U. and NATO are today on the borders of Russia. Now NATO wants to station anti-missile batteries in Poland and the Czech Republic. Apologists for NATO, who reside mainly in the U.S., stress that the entire E.U. project would have been unfeasible but for the military cover and economic aid provided by the U.S. after the devastation caused by the War.

Eurosceptics, whose numbers are rising by the day on the continent, have been either dismissive or sarcastic about the E.U. being awarded the Peace Prize. The leader of the anti-E.U. Independence Party in the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage, said that the Nobel Committee had a sense of humour and added that the E.U. may be getting the booby prize for peace because it has not created prosperity. The British government, which has been trying to distance itself from the E.U. for many years now, refused to comment about the award, but the leader of the British Conservative Party in the European Parliament, Martin Callanan, said that by giving the prize to the E.U., the Nobel Committee had undermined the excellent work of the other deserving winners of the prize.

Critical voices

Mairead Corrigan Maguire, the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976, has been critical of the choice this year. She said that the E.U. did not meet the criteria set out by Alfred Nobel, who said that the prize he instituted should go to those who worked for fraternity among nations and the abolition and reduction of standing armies. Mairead Maguire pointed out that the E.U. imposes severe austerity measures upon many of its own member countries while simultaneously supporting the growing militarisation of Europe by its support for the U.S. military and for NATO. She also underlined the double standards adopted by the E.U. on human rights issues.

Instead of upholding human rights for countries such as Palestine, the E.U. has rewarded Israel with special trading status and huge grants for its military research and weapons, thus enabling it to continue its illegal policies of occupation and apartheid, the Nobel Peace laureate observed. The E.U. has supported the inhuman blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel.

The Palestinian author and human rights activist Omar Barghouti has concluded that Europes collusion with Israel is too intricate to reduce to sheer Holocaust guilt. Economic influences, U.S. influence, Islamophobia, the prevalence of a security mentality, are all very relevant factors in understanding this relationship. Mairead Maguire has demanded that the current Nobel Committee should be held accountable for its lamentable choices of giving political awards. She said that a reform of the Nobel Peace Committee was now necessary.

Writing in Sddeutsche Zeitung, Thomas Kirchner, a German commentator, described the E.U. as a quarrelling bunch of more or less bankrupt states. He went on to add that the Nobel Committee must be careful if it wants its decisions to be taken seriously for much longer.

Rise of the Right

In Greece, where the E.Us austerity policies have taken a heavy toll and have given rise to the xenophobic neo-Nazi movement Golden Dawn, the reaction to this years Nobel Peace Prize announcement has been scathing. The E.Us tough anti-immigrant policies have strengthened right-wing organisations. The Golden Dawn Party increased its tally in parliament to 18 seats. In other E.U. member states such as France and Italy, the extreme Right has emerged as a stronger force.

The left-wing party Syriza, which came a close second in the Greek elections held in the middle of this year, said it was astonished by the choice of the E.U. The decision cheapens the prize and, most importantly, harms the institution of the Nobel Peace Award, the Syriza spokesman said. In many parts of Europe, especially Greece, we are experiencing what really is a war situation on a daily basis, albeit a war that has not been formally declared. Jean-Luc Mlenchon, the leader of Frances leftist Front de Gauche, described the granting of the award to the E.U. as an illustration of black humour. The rich E.U. states have been extremely reluctant to come to the aid of fellow members who find themselves in dire economic straits. There is even open talk of restructuring the eurozone, leaving out nations in southern Europe that are currently in the midst of an economic crisis.

Jagland, speaking in Oslo, did admit that the 27-member E.U. grouping was currently not in good shape. The E.U. is currently undergoing great economic difficulties and considerable social unrest, he said. But the focus of the Nobel Committee, he emphasised, was on the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. In this context, Jagland harped on the positive role the E.U. played in the Balkans. He conveniently glossed over the E.Us pivotal role in triggering the disintegration of the Yugoslav Federation. Brussels had actively encouraged the Slovenians, the Croatians, the Bosnians and the Kosovars to secede from the Yugoslav Federation. It was under the E.Us watch that the terrible atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina took place.

The E.U. stood united behind NATO as it conducted a war for 78 days in 1999 against what was left of the Yugoslav Federation. Factories, bridges, hospitals, media centres and even schools were targeted. Thousands of civilians were killed and the infrastructure of the country was destroyed. Many consider that war a precursor to the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both these wars had the full support of the E.U. In recent years, the E.U. has supported the NATO war in Libya and is now busy sanctioning Iran and Syria as preparations are under way to launch military attacks against these two countries.

Three days after the announcement of the Peace Prize, the E.U. decided to ban the broadcast of Iranian news channels, including the widely watched 24-hour Press TV, in the continent. This move comes on top of the unilateral sanctions that the E.U. has imposed on Iran. The E.U. had stood aside and watched as more than a million Iraqis perished when the country was placed under sanctions after the first Gulf War. The draconian sanctions that are now in place against Iran are already having an adverse impact on the life of the common man there.

The E.U. has not contributed in a consistent way to promoting fraternity among nations as Alfred Nobel had desired. In the last several decades, Europe has in fact partnered the U.S. in developing an armed force that wants to impose its will on the rest of the world. Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have had first-hand experience of this. Countries that dare to resist hegemony may be next in line.