This year it went to the European Union, namely because there hasn’t been a major European War in over half a century. I think it also has something to with how they handled the economic crisis because we all know peace is about economics, global warming and not being George W. Bush.
How the fuck did they not revote yesterday to give it to Malala Yousufzai? That and the Taliban are more than worthy of a Pitting. Even if you claim they couldn’t convene that quickly there has got to be people/organizations more deserving than the EU. What about those celebrities that without all that hype go to Africa and save babies like George Clooney and Boner from U2?
Who would you have given the Nobel Peace Prize to this year?
So, what’s wrong with decades worth of peace and prosperity over a big part of a continent that was formerly wracked with very bloody wars? I’m not following you.
If that is the criteria, I think the U.S. has a better case because we haven’t have a government sponsored Indian massacre in well over 100 years. The EU is just barely holding it together at the moment and their problems were almost all self-induced. There is very little reason for self-congratulation right now because the situation could degenerate at any time. If they manage to not fully melt-down again in the next decade, maybe they should get a gold sticker but no more. Like Chris Rock says, “You aren’t getting a reward for that. That is what you are supposed to do!”. I don’t think “well, at least they aren’t committing any holocausts (right now)” to be worthy of an international prize.
So what is it about if it’s not any of those things? Spoiler warning: they’re not going to give it to Bush next year either! Maybe we can put this complaint to rest now? The prize has lost its luster for me but like many of their decisions, this one seems less ridiculous if you look at the reasoning. They are apparently trying to send a message in favor of internationalism and cooperation at a time when nationalist parties are making gains and violence is up and countries grumble about leaving the EU every time an ambassador stubs his toe. But the principles the Nobel committee is talking about are arguably more important than ever for just those reasons and despite all the EU’s problems. I don’t disagree with any of that even if there are also a ton of deserving individuals like Malala Yousufzai.
Is there any particular reason her being shot obliges them to revote? She’s been doing her work for a while (and deserves a lot of credit for it); they made their decision a while ago and I don’t think they need to throw their previous votes out the window because she was shot. And of course if they did, we’d see people complaining that they gave her an award just for getting shot.
Because being shot in the face as a 14 year old that simply believes that girls should go to school holds a little more gravitas for me. Likewise people who spend their own time and money preventing those in poverty in Africa (and how fucking poor do you have to be below the poverty line in Africa?!) from dying, either from famine, disease or tribal war? Hell I’d give it to Seal Team 6 or Obama (if he didn’t already have one) for taking out bin Ladin before I’d give it to the EU.
Actually yes there is. Nobel Prizes (with one unusual exception) cannot be given out posthumously. If she dies from the gunshot she will be ineligible from ever receiving the Prize but if she dies after being announced she still is awarded it.
It seems to me that the Nobel Committee’s purpose is to award achievement, not set policy. Giving a Prize to send a message is like giving an Oscar for an unfilmed script.
This is turning into a rant against bureaucrats or diplomats. Granted that other people do much more exciting and sometimes dangerous work, but if you are talking about doing “the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses,” then there is also a place for recognizing diplomacy.
Or look at it as a big fuck-you to Anders Behring Breivik. You have to enjoy that a little.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for that girl. I don’t agree that being the victim of a politically-motivated crime, in and of itself, is sufficient reason to make a snap decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize.
Obviously I’m wrong about this, but I’d always thought that the prize had to go to an individual or a handful of specific individuals. I don’t see the point in giving it to a nation, let alone a group of nations.
It seems the prize is getting as dumbed down as Time’s “Person of the Year.”
Not true. It’s been awarded to 99 people and 23 organizations over the years, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Red Cross, and several UN organizations.
The E.U. did not cause 60+ years of peace, it happened at the same time due to realisation that post WW2 mechanised, industrialised, remotely controlled annihilation was now possible.
That being the case, wouldn’t it be a good idea to be a little more friendly? The peaceful intent came before the European Union.
It certainly doesn’t deserve a peace prize.