IN 1925 and at the age of 69, George Bernard Shaw was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. In a typical Shaw reaction he accepted the award, refused the money and commented that the award was like throwing life-saving equipment to a swimmer after he reached the shore.
This year’s Nobel Peace Prize is different. It was given to the European Union, which is going through such a rough time that questions have arisen regarding the viability of the Union, given the economic problems that have started to turn into social and political ones. In short, it is not the best time to award the EU, but perhaps the award was given to boost the EU’s morale and help it forge ahead.
This also leads us to question whether the Norwegian Committee’s decision was politically motivated, as was the case in the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize award that was bestowed upon the then newly elected US President, Barack Obama, who had hardly been in office yet. It was then described as an award for intentions, not deeds.
At a time in which street battles between the police and demonstrators in Athens, Madrid, and Lisbon are taking place, a good chunk of the population will interpret this award as the committee’s blessing for the policies enforced by the governments of these ailing European countries. Policies viewed by many of the citizens to be lacking in social sensitivity and seeming to favor institutions, as well as the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Such criticism, which usually emanates from the left, depicts a growing class divide between Europe’s northern affluent societies, where Norway is located, and the poor southern countries like Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal.
This year’s award to the European Union was justified as a recognition for the EU’s efforts, spanning six decades to overcome conflicts, mistrust, and move toward being a harbinger of peace, reconciliation, democracy and human rights at home and beyond. And that is why some think it is unfair to look at the EU only through the prism of the euro zone monetary crisis.
Whether the award reflects the Norwegian Committee’s recognition of the merit of cooperation and the need for multilateralism or not, the question was and continues to be, on the ability of multinational organizations to meet today’s challenges and social problems.
That applies to two other regional organizations striving to follow the footsteps of the EU, namely the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the African Union (AU). Unlike the EU, neither the GCC, nor AU has a history of bloodshed and destruction in terms of wars and animosity. In fact the GCC seems to have more in common among its six members in terms of its political, economic and social structure than the EU members today. The AU on the other hand, which evolved out of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), was the outcome of the colonial period that depicted the continent’s history. Trying to find their way out in the era of independence, the OAU was established to help the 50-plus member states tend to issues of common interest.
But the slow pace with which things were moving and the need to respect existing borders and sovereignty inherited from colonial powers, led to a growing dissatisfaction with the performance of the OAU. In the end, the AU was established with the hope of speeding the integration process and imitating the successful trajectory of the EU.
The same applies to the GCC, which was working, though slowly to match the EU experience in monetary and customary union, while trying to coordinate on political and social issues.
All three organizations are facing the challenges of globalization, which ironically push them to deepen their integration, whilst at the same time caution them to maintain their statehood and boundaries, and respect the rights of individuals.
There are no clear-cut answers or solutions yet. Human experience can be shared, yet indigenous conditions prevail, and the challenge remains on how to combine the two.
— This article is exclusive to Arab News.
