As military war is possibly the worst threat to humanity and the environment, alongside with famine caused by socialised economies, the Nobel Peace Price, is indeed one of of top events of the year. And constantly debated. This year, as well as previous.
The usual questions are: Should it really go to an organisation, and not to an heroic individual? Answer is that it’s OK according to Nobel’s will, though most of us probably find heroes more exciting.
Was it the right choice, and, the recurring question, is it really an honor, given the rather questionable choices previous years. Sure, there are some real heroes on the list, but to give it to Obama, not because he stopped any wars and atrocities, but because he had said he hoped to, made even the recipient himself embarrassed. And Gore and IPCC? It’s not customary to take back the prize, but Climategate ought to have been embarrassing for the committee.
The most heard comment about this year’s pick of the EU is that the project it really not that succcesful for the moment. On the other hand, you can hardly deny that it was, and is, a peace project. There are still unsolved conflictcs among members and neighbours, Cyprus, Sudetenland, Northern Balkan, but we will never know how the 20th century would have developed if not for the EEC/EU.
My annual reflection, given that there’s still some value in the prize, is that – especially in the light of this year’s choice – is that it should be awarded to Walburga Gräfin Habsburg Douglas, who, literally, opened the iron curtain in August 1989, and her late father Otto von Habsburg, who would have turned 100 on November 20 this year. As International President and Secretary General of the Paneuropean Union, an organisation advocating European unity and peace, long before the EU, they, if any, should be regarded as icons of European peace. You might want to include the PEU itself too, if you want an organisation, the only Paneuropean movement that never accepted the division of Europe in West and East, a point the EU tended to be more ambivalent on.