Self-congratulatory self-congratulation

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

It's official. The Nobel peace prize committee has jumped the shark.

Having caused a major WTF moment by giving the award to freshly elected Obama for having done exactly nothing for world peace but pronouncing a few inspiring speeches in various world capitals, now they've decided to surpass their own achievement and reward... themselves, i.e. the EU. Congrats, Europe! Just when you seemed to have reached the peak of all ridiculousness, you've beaten your own record!

Some of the "achievements" of the European peacemongers from the post-WW2 period:

- Some of the leading nations from good "Old Europe" traded with Gaddafi's Libya for quite a while, and they definitely weren't selling him tomatoes. When shit eventually hit the fan, they were the first to beat the war drums and want him out, leaving Libya in a total mess. All for democracy, you know! Because peace and freedom will eventually prevail - somehow.

- While "saving peace" in Europe after WW2, some very nice events happened overseas: like the Algerian War, the Falkland crisis,  and various military and covert interventions throughout the Third World - not without the active "participation" of European forces. Bad guys and bad regimes being deposed for the sake of world peace, and all that.

- Extensive nuclear tests in the Pacific turned a number of atolls into rubble, possibly contaminating the sea for hundreds of miles and decades ahead.

If memory serves, Alfred Nobel did explicitly say that this prize was meant only for those who worked for disarmament, or am I mistaken? Granted, for a time it really was being given to such people. At some point, things must have changed between that time and today.

Comments

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

There is no clear definition between civil wars and wars.

NYTimes, 26th November 2006: "The common scholarly definition [of civil wars] has two main criteria. The first says that the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second says that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side."

And because I'm lazy this here comes directly from Wiki: "A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic,[1] or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united nation state.[2]"

Also here: a publication about "The Yugoslavian Civil War: An Analysis of the Applicability of the Laws of War Governing Non-International Armed Conflicts in the Modern World".

In other words, yes, the Balkan Wars can be called Civil Wars as well.


The peaceful era between 1878 - 1914 barely lastet 40 years. Second, the countries weren't peaceful, they just settled on not attacking each other in Europe - what else were colonies for? What Belgian did in the Congo, France generally in Africa (military expendition = conquering) and the other countries around the world, was an accumulation of wealth not seen since then. In short, they were just too busy conquering the world to care much about home.

Furthermore, it was you who said that the Balkan wars count against the EU. Okay, but then you have to count the various eastern Wars during that period as well. Wars like the Russo-Turkish War (1877-78) or the Italo-Turkish War, not to mention the various troubles in Greece, Romania, Albania...
And of course the two Balkan Wars, the first and the second. The two wars together had around one million dead.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You did read where I said after 1878, didn't you?

The peaceful era was in fact a peaceful era, in contrast to how you're putting it. The Balkan Wars do count against the idea of a pure peace, but that only goes if you count the Ottomans/Turkey as European. The Italo-Turkish War was fought over Cyrenaica and Tripoli, i.e. Libya, and was not fought in Europe. By your own definition of Europe the absolute monarchs deserve more credit for peace than the EU.

[silberstreif.livejournal.com]

How in the world do the monarchs deserve more credit? They just were even more greedy than most democracies.
So, in your definition it was a peaceful era in Europe, despite what the countries did in the rest of the world... and that this was better, than the EU today which introduced definite humanitarian standarts?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

They deserve credit for actually ending war 'in Europe' where the EU couldn't hack it. It's not by my definition, it's by yours. By my definition the EU deserves this not at all.