Skip to main content

Not a worthy (and odd) prize-winner

One has to wonder what the members of the Nobel Prize committee were on when they made their decision to award European Union this year's Peace Prize.

"Three years after awarding the world's most recognized international peace prize to Barack Obama, the sitting president of the United States—who at the time was commanding the operations of two foreign wars and overseeing the largest military and intelligence apparatus in the history of the world—the Nobel Committee's announcement in Oslo on Friday that it was awarding the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union was met with befuddlement by many.

Thorbjørn Jagland, head of the Nobel committee, cited the EU's role in stabilizing Europe following the Second World War and its role as a "unifying" force over decades.  Though he acknowledged the economic turmoil sweeping the continent in recent years, Jagland said the committee wished to "focus on what it sees as the EU's most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The stabilising part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace."



*****

"Tariq Ali, political commentator and editor at the New Left Review in Europe, told Democracy Now's Amy Goodman that his initial response was to burst to "burst out laughing."

"The Nobel Committee never fails to amuse and dissapoint," he said.

Petros Constantinou, a municipal councilor in Greece who runs a prominent anti-racism group in Athens, in an interview with The Guardian's Helena Smith called the decision “ridiculous and provocative.”

“To give the prize to an institution of war and racism is ridiculous," he said. “It provokes democratic and anti-racist sentiment. With its partner NATO, the EU has invaded countries in the Middle East, not to mention Afghanistan. Its actions have created huge streams of refugees which then flood into countries like Greece and when they get here they not only encounter racism but hostile EU [border] agencies like Frontex.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...