Making sense of EU's Nobel Peace Prize

The Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to European Union (EU) has generated mixed responses. For EU officials, the Nobel Committee's decision makes sense since the peace award goes to an institution that really deserves it. EU supporters are delighted by the fact that EU is the only regional intergovernmental organisation to win the prestigious peace prize. Senior EU officials, including EU President Herman Van Rompuy, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, and European Parliament President Martin Schultz, said it was a recognition that was long overdue.
In order to grasp the importance of the Nobel Committee's decision, one has to look into two contrasting approaches to peace: negative peace and positive peace. Negative peace refers to absence of war or violence, while positive peace implies promotion of social justice and inclusive policies. It is interesting that the Nobel Committee and EU's supporters tend to highlight EU's contribution to negative peace. This is because historical enmity between France and Germany caused many wars on the European continent. In the postwar era, the EU and its predecessors, such as the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community, and the European Community, facilitated rule-based cooperation among member states. Greater economic cooperation has created an incentive for stable relations while reducing the likelihood of war. This led the Nobel Committee to conclude that: "Today, war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This [the European integration process] shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners."
EU's contribution to positive peace cannot be ignored altogether. This is exactly why the question of promoting democracy and human rights comes to the fore. Evidence can be found in the way EU membership is extended to countries in the Balkans and Central and Eastern Europe. More than one-third of EU's 27 member states joined the organisation after the end of Cold War. Political democratisation and economic liberalisation were set as important preconditions for EU membership candidacy. It is thus no surprise that today's democratic Hungary, Lithuania, and Poland, for instance, look completely different from and arguably better than their autocratic past. Democracy and human rights are valued so much for their role in expanding individual liberty, freedom of speech, and economic choices.
For cynics, the Nobel Committee's decision to award the peace prize to EU is nonsense and an irony. Although critics appear to speak in one voice, there are many facets of EU's Nobel critics, such as anti-colonialists, economic nationalists, and Euro-sceptics. Much of the historicist and anti-colonialist criticisms come from Afro-Asian political analysts. African observers are particularly unhappy at the Nobel Committee's decision. For them, Europe's long history of colonialism, slave trade, and military intervention have undermined African development.
Hebert Zharare, political editor of The Herald Online, criticises the "predatory behaviour" of some EU member states for creating two world wars and interfering in the internal affairs of other states. Economic nationalists in Greece, Portugal, and Spain have derided the EU's Nobel prize, saying it was untimely when the Eurozone crisis has revealed divisions rather than unity. Nationalists are concerned with the EU's role in imposing austerity measures in their countries, which have led to riots and social unrests.
Great Britain is well known for harbouring sceptical attitude toward the EU. In fact, on many international issues, the United Kingdom appears to be more Atlanticist than Europeanist. This means, in the conduct of international affairs, the UK attaches more importance to the United States of America and its principal military alliance North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) than Britain's European neighbours and the EU. It is thus no surprise that British Prime Minister David Cameron offered an unenthusiastic comment on EU's Nobel Peace Prize. In a belated statement on October 19, 2012, Cameron remarked that the EU was not the only institution to be credited for making peace in Europe. He made it categorical that Nato deserved the credit too!
Turkish critics have joined the chorus saying the EU should be prized for its duplicity and hypocrisy. The source of Turkish anger is obvious: Ankara has long been kept waiting for EU membership. The European Commission has made it clear that the EU will not extend its membership to Ankara until Turkey improves its human rights standards.
Proponents of the EU respond to the critics by emphasising the past achievements of EU in stabilising Europe. They acknowledge the magnitude of economic challenges faced by the EU and its member states, but are hopeful that a strong EU, rather than a divided Europe, can better handle the economic anarchy. For them, absent European institutions, parochial national interests and right wing extremism will challenge the ethnic diversity and cultural plurality of Europe.
Contrasting images from EU's supporters and critics offer a fresh opportunity for South Asia to examine the effect of economic integration on regional peace and stability. Established in 1985, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) is yet to show visible progress in creating a free trade area. Saarc leaders can follow the EU's footsteps and examine how the Europeans have put aside their parochial national interests to move toward the formation of a regional community. Such lessons are particularly important for India and Pakistantwo South Asian archrivalswho have fought three wars since independence in 1947, and have often boasted of their nuclear arsenals as the ultimate guarantors of national security. Today, the Kashmir dispute remains at the heart of bitter Indo-Pak relations, foiling the prospects for a strong Saarc process.
I contend that, like France and Germany in Europe, India and Pakistan in South Asia should come forward with a gesture of goodwill and friendship in constructing a strong foundation for Saarc. As a founding member of Saarc and an enthusiastic promoter of South Asian identity, Bangladesh should help bring New Delhi and Islamabad closer to the negotiating table. The EU can also extend its political clout and diplomatic support in this effort. Such efforts should aim to create a strong Saarc, which will not only reduce conflict possibilities between India and Pakistan, but also promote democracy, free trade, and people to people contact in the region. Regardless of the negative image painted by the critics, the EU is likely to be seen by many South Asians as a role model of regional integration and a success story of peace.

The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka.