EU critics slam Nobel Peace Prize decision

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union has been met with disdain by so-called euroskeptics, who view the 27-nation blog as both impotent and meddlesome.

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.

While some Europeans swelled with pride when the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize, howls of derision erupted from the continent's large band of skeptics.

To many in the 27-nation bloc, the EU is an unwieldy and unloved agglomeration overseen by a top-heavy bureaucracy devoted to creating arcane regulations about everything from cheese to fishing quotas. Set up with noble goals after the devastation of World War II, the EU now appears to critics impotent amid a debt crisis that has widened north-south divisions, threatened the euro currency and plunged several members, from Greece to Ireland to Spain, into economic turmoil.

What were they thinking?

The vocal anti-EU politicians known as euroskeptics burst into a chorus of disdain.

"First Al Gore, then Obama, now this. Parody is redundant," tweeted Daniel Hannan, a euroskeptic European lawmaker — yes, such things exist — from Britain's Conservative Party. President Barack Obama won the peace prize in 2009, less than a year after he was elected, while Gore, a former U.S. vice president, was the 2007 recipient for his campaign against climate change.

Nigel Farage, head of the U.K. Independence Party — which wants Britain to withdraw from the union — called the peace prize "an absolute disgrace."

"Haven't they had their eyes open?" he said, arguing that Europe was facing "increasing violence and division," with mass protests from Madrid to Athens over tax hikes and job cuts and growing resentment of Germany, the union's rich and powerful economic anchor.

And Dutch populist lawmaker Geert Wilders scoffed: "Nobel prize for the EU. At a time (when) Brussels and all of Europe is collapsing in misery. What next?"

The sound of one hand clapping

Britain, which has been an EU member since the 1970s but likes to keep an English Channel-wide distance between itself and the union, gave a muted reaction. Prime Minister David Cameron's office had no comment — a safe policy for the leader of a Conservative Party deeply divided between pro- and anti-EU camps.

The Foreign Office noted, tersely, that the award "recognizes the EU's historic role in promoting peace and reconciliation in Europe, particularly through its enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe. The EU must always strive to preserve and strengthen those achievements."

Conservative lawmaker and former foreign secretary Malcolm Rifkind, whose party is deeply divided on Britain's role in the EU, probably spoke for many Britons when he called the decision slightly eccentric.

"If they want to give the prize for preserving the peace in Europe, they should divide it between NATO and the EU," he said. "Until the end of the Cold War, it was NATO more than anyone else that kept the peace."

Others praised the union's role in reuniting post-Communist Europe but pointed out its greatest failure — the inability to halt the bloody Balkan wars that raged just outside the EU's borders during the 1990s.

What's in it for me?

Some Europeans wondered whether all of the EU's 500 million residents could claim a share of the glory — and the $1.2 million prize money.

"I've just won the Nobel Peace Prize? How exciting," tweeted CNN's British talk show host Piers Morgan.

"As a member of the EU, I am delighted to accept the Nobel Peace Prize," joked British playwright Dan Rebellato on Twitter. "I shall keep it in the spare room, in case people want to look at it."

BBC business correspondent Robert Peston wondered whether everyone in the EU would get a share of the prize money, which works out to about a quarter of a cent per person.

"What will you spend yours on?" he asked followers on Twitter.

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.

QR Code to EU critics slam Nobel Peace Prize decision
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1012/EU-critics-slam-Nobel-Peace-Prize-decision
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe