The Nobel Peace Prize, perhaps at one time a universally admired achievement, has managed to take yet another step toward becoming a complete farce. Just three years after granting a newly elected Barack Obama the Prize for little more than the content of his campaign speeches, the Norwegian politicians that comprise the Nobel Committee gave the award to the European Union, a decision that left much of the world scratching its collective head in confusion.
According to the Nobel Committee, the EU deserved the honor for having "over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe." Essentially, the committee deemed it appropriate to reward most of the members of an entire continent for behaving exactly as they should for not attacking one another. Of course, many EU member states have engaged in some sort of armed conflict in the past six decades. But an undistinguished history of participation in international military operations is not enough to discredit the EU alone; after all, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and not the EU serves as the military coordinator for much of the continent. No, the Nobel Committee's decision is flawed for two main reasons: It affords the shared ideals of the EU too much credit for the continuing peace on the continent, and it completely ignores the present-day quagmire in which the EU finds itself.
The idea that the European peace is a direct result of the liberal values shared throughout the continent is a nice one. This type of thinking appeals to our idealism as good Westerners and to our senses of democracy, freedom and fairness. But solely concentrating on the proliferation of liberalism as the cause for peace, as the Nobel Committee does, leaves a much more visceral factor out of the equation the rather large United States military presence in Europe. From the end of World War II to the modern day, the United States has maintained significant amounts of personnel and equipment across the European continent. The explicit purpose of such an expensive and large force approximately 90,000 men and women is not to prevent, for example, France and Germany from attacking one another again. Rather, the preservation of such a presence grants the United States easier access to the Middle East and offers the military a better position from which to respond to emergency situations.
Regardless of U.S. intention, however, European states are the beneficiaries of such a security blanket. They have to worry less about providing for their own defenses and can concentrate funds and efforts on welfare programs or other potentially stabilizing projects. And of course, a large and capable American military presence is likely to deter an unfavorable balance of power from materializing in Europe just in case, say, Germany started wondering about exactly how much it could flex its ever-growing muscles. So perhaps the Nobel Committee should have awarded the prize to the U.S. Army as a joint declaration for having "over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe."
And of course, the EU as it exists now is in rather poor shape. Anyone not living under a rock is aware that the EU is still in the midst of a fiscal crisis that has been ongoing for several years. Less wealthy and less financially competent countries, such as Greece and Spain, have been forced by more wealthy and more financially competent countries, mainly Germany, to impose strict austerity measures on irate populaces, which have responded with protests that have at times devolved into violent riots. At this point, it is not unreasonable to state that the only glue holding the EU's fiscal union together is German willingness to act as a bailout fund; nor is it unreasonable to assume that German tolerance and patience will eventually evaporate. If this happens and chaos results, the financial pact between EU nations will be abandoned, and the entire ideal of European unity will have been dealt a death blow.
The Nobel Committee is obviously well aware of the fragile state of the EU. Perhaps it felt that a Nobel Prize would do something for morale on the continent. But there were other, more deserving candidates. And how such an esteemed body could so blatantly ignore the harsh status quo of its chosen winner, in the form of current unrest and possibly impending pandemonium, is inexplicable.
