Media and blogosphere had been full of buzz about Nobel peace prize awarded to European Union, with questions ranging from who would attend the Stockholm ceremony to receive the award check to whether the money can be used to pay down debt of Greece or Spain. From Der Spiegel –
Meanwhile, social networks are filled with wise cracks about how the EU, in light of the euro crisis, certainly wouldn’t qualify for a Nobel Prize in economics. And there is also considerable speculation online about which of the numerous presidents of EU institutions will ultimately accept the prize. Some newspapers are even calculating how many pence each Brit would get if the €1 million in prize money were divvied up among them.
The gloating underscores the extent to which the debate over the EU has taken a life of its own in Britain. What is considered to be historical fact on the Continent is disparaged as EU propaganda in the UK. “To be sure, France and Germany have not gone to war since 1945,” writes Spectator blogger James Forsyth. “But to chalk that up solely to the European Union is a profound misreading of history.” He described the decision in Oslo as “bizarre.”
Of course it is true and commendable that European countries have not seen any major war since 1945. What gets forgotten is that Europeans and Americans deluded themselves similarly after experiencing longer period of relative peace between Napoleonic wars and WW I. Here is an extract from 1912 Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech by Elihu Root talking about permanent peace –
The frank and simple days of the Roman proconsul and of the robber baron have passed, and three things have happened: first, there has come to be a public opinion of the world; second, that opinion has set up a new standard of national conduct which condemns unjustified aggression; and third, the public opinion of the world punishes the violation of its standard. It has not been very long since the people of each country were concerned almost exclusively with their own affairs, and, with but few individual exceptions, neither knew nor cared what was going on outside their own boundaries. All that has changed. The spread of popular education; the enormous increase in the production and circulation of newspapers and periodicals and cheap books; the competition of the press, which ranges the world for news; the telegraph, which carries instantly knowledge of all important events everywhere to all parts of the world; the new mobility of mankind, which, availing itself of the new means of travel by steamship and railroad, with its new freedom under the recently recognized right of expatriation and the recently established right of free travel, moves to and fro by the million across the boundaries of the nations; the vast extension of international commerce; the recognition of interdependence of the peoples of different nations engendered by this commerce and this intercourse; their dependence upon each other for the supply of their needs and for the profitable disposal of their products, for the preservation of health, for the promotion of morals and for the increase of knowledge and the advance of thought – all these are creating an international community of knowledge and interest, of thought and feeling. In the hundreds of international associations reported by Senator La Fontaine’s L’Office central at Brussels11, men of all nations are learning to think internationally about science and morals and hygiene and religion and society and business. Gradually, everything that happens in the world is coming to be of interest everywhere in the world, and, gradually, thoughtful men and women everywhere are sitting in judgment upon the conduct of all nations. Some very crass and indefensible things have been done by nations within the past few years, but no one can read the discussions about those national acts without seeing that the general judgment of mankind has sunk deep into the hearts of the people of the countries responsible; that a great new force is at work in international affairs; that the desire for approval and the fear of condemnation by the contemporary opinion of the civilized world is becoming a powerful influence to control national conduct. True, we are but at the beginning, but it is the beginning of a great new era in which the public opinion of mankind renders judgment, not upon peace and war, for a vast majority of mankind is in favor of war when that is necessary for the preservation of liberty and justice, but upon the just and unjust conduct of nations, as the public opinion of each community passes upon the just and unjust conduct of its individual members. The chief force which makes for peace and order in the community of individuals is not the police officer, with his club, but it is the praise and blame, the honor and shame, which follow observance or violation of the community’s standards of right conduct. In the new era that is dawning of the world’s public opinion we need not wait for the international policeman, with his artillery, for, when any people feels that its government has done a shameful thing and has brought them into disgrace in the opinion of the world, theirs will be the vengeance and they will inflict the punishment.
We know how that turned out !! Incidentally, Elihu Root was among the biggest warmongers dragging USA into WW I.
In our expectation, the world is embarking on a period of widespread violence more severe than 1912-1945 (US soil will be the major venue this time), but can we learn from 1912 saga to understand what is going on? The answer lies in the next paragraphs of Mr. Root’s speech (emphasis ours) –
The old system of exploitation of colonies and the monopolization of their trade for the benefit of the mother country has practically disappeared. The best informed men are coming to understand that, under modern conditions, the prosperity of each nation is enhanced by the prosperity of all other nations; and that the government which acquires political control over new territory may gratify pride and minister to ambition but can have only a slight effect to advance the welfare of its people.
The support of these statements rests upon the facts of economic science If they are true, as I am sure we all believe them to be, they should be forced upon the attention of the peoples, not by mere assertion, which avails but little, but by proof drawn from the rich stores of evidence to be found in the history of mankind. For the accomplishment of this purpose a meeting of eminent economists and publicists was held three years ago at Bern. They came from Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Great Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Austria-Hungary, the United States, and Japan. For some weeks they devoted themselves to the preparation of a program for systematic, scientific investigation into the historical and economic causes and effects of war. For the three years which have ensued they have been engaged, with ample and competent assistance, in pursuing their investigations. The first installments of their work are ready for publication, and they reconvened last month to review what has been done and to lay down the lines of further work. The results of their labors, when made available, should be eagerly sought by every lover of peace who is competent by tongue or pen to be a teacher of his fellowmen, for we may be confident they will show that while the sacrifice of war may be demanded for justice, for liberty, for national life, yet war is always a sacrifice, and never is a rational mode of promoting material prosperity.
What got known as ‘economic science’ then and now is a bunch of hobgoblins being promoted as science, and accepted at face value by gullible people.
Getting back to the current award of Nobel peace prize, European Union is a centralization experiment that failed miserably, and every other day one part of Europe or other wants to get out of the prison (Catalonia, Venice, Scotland). You do not need to look for parallels with early 19th century to figure out that EU is a failure. Nazis are already marching in streets of Greece.
We previously explained the cause of European crisis, which is ignorance of ordinary Europeans about how the capital structures in banks are arranged, and why the bailouts are primarily to help wealthy not lose money from their senior bonds. The rapid rise in popularity of Golden Dawn is directly related to failure of EU, because Greek people see all traditional parties to be beholden to interests of bankers, and not ordinary people. The two choices offered by economists – ‘more debt’ and ‘austerity’ are false choices, and the real solution is to let the banks take losses on bad investments, and start anew. In that light, award of Nobel peace prize seems to assert that the Europe is better, if the Europeans continue to stay ignorant and let elites from centralized institutions controlled by bankers dictate the terms of their suffering.