EU snags the Nobel Peace Prize. Now what?

There are good years and there are bad years for the Nobel Peace Prize, Brown writes. What will the prize mean for the future of the European Union?

Markus Schreiber/AP
A European Union flag waves in the wind in front of the chancellery in Berlin Friday after the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize. The EU won the prize for fostering peace on a continent ravaged by war, giving bruised leaders of the 60-year-old European project a badly needed boost in morale.

This morning, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the entire European Union. The first thought I had upon hearing that news was "Great, how much can they pawn it for?"

It was also pointed that out that, ironically, the selection committee is out of Norway, a nation that would fit perfectly into the EU - except that it had chosen not to join. A wise choice, especially considering both the absolute and relative strength of the Norwegian economy (lots of oil, it's like a snowy Saudi Arabia, also they made a conscious decision to use the oil wealth for the good of their entire society, not just for whichever Viking stumbled upon it first in the North Sea).

Anyway, my other thought was that there are good years and stupid years for the Nobel Peace Prize, I'm not sure which this will turn out to be. Remember that Yasser Arafat once won, shortly before becoming the father of modern day terrorism. Also, one-termer Jimmy Carter for some unenduring reason no one can remember. They also gave Henry Kissinger the award for signing the Vietnam Accords, in the meantime he had been secretly bombing Laos.

So whatever, enjoy your award, just please kick out Greece and bail Spain already. Let's move on.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.