![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
mahnmut.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIt'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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 12/12/12 19:53 (UTC)"Sometimes force must be met with force."
In some rare cases, yes. And no, the UN is not good at that. But it also was never supposed to be good at this. It's more of a debate club than an army. But it's the only platform in the world were every country has a right to speak (as crazy as it might be in some cases), and is heard. And I think this is a good thing.
(no subject)
Date: 12/12/12 19:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/12/12 21:34 (UTC)About 1991: As far as I am aware, the UN security council just passed the resolution tha condemned Iraq's conquest of Kuwait. The army itself was a coalition of several states - but there was no obligation to take part in it. In other words, the UN resolution only gave the legitimation to go to war, not an order.
But I have to admit, that I'm not sure about the part that there was no obligation to send soldiers. Several countries though chose not to take part in that war.
(no subject)
Date: 13/12/12 13:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/12/12 14:15 (UTC)To get the UN to authorize warfare the decisions have to be unanimously among the security council. Considering the many different countries that hold a seat in it, it's difficult to get such a decision passed. As we see now in Syria's case, 'just' a bloody civil war isn't enough. On the other hand, for a country to know that there is a line that if crossed will turn most of the world against you, can be considered a stabilising factor as well...
But as I said, at the moment I lack the time to read up on the small details in the last decades.