The news that the EU will be awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize was quite a surprise, and it caught a continent off guard. Praise for the EU? The constant drip-drip of bad news and mini-crises bubbling up as the Great Recession rumbles on has made any major show of support for the idea of European unity, beyond crisis-fighting necessity - almost unthinkable. It was a controversial decision, and I've mixed feelings about it.
Ironically, I wrote a post two months ago arguing that pro-Europeans should move away from arguing for the EU based on its peace mission, and now it's the focus of continental debate. While I agree that the EU deserves the prize, I do have a few reservations about the timing and the manner of the award.
The EU deserves the Peace Prize
The EU has been amazingly successful as a peace project in Europe, ensuring the reconciliation between France and Germany, it has helped anchor European states in democracy and it has provided a structure of rules and constant negotiation that promotes and secures a culture of problem-solving that rests on diplomacy and even transnational democracy (if a flawed transnational democracy). As I argued in my post on retiring the pro-European peace argument, purely military alliances do not build such a culture and allies, such as Greece and Turkey, could even have their relations collapse and move towards serious conflict.
It's important to stress that peace - and particularly a sustainable, lasting peace - isn't simply the absence of war, but the presence of a working system and culture that brings countries together in a way that solving problems peacefully and cooperatively becomes not just more workable, but the norm. The EU provides a system of cooperation and negotiation that is constant, building a community of values and interests that helps bind Europe together and sustains that culture of peace between the Member States. Of course peace wouldn't collapse tomorrow if the EU disappeared, but without a sustainable system the norms underwriting peace would be eroded. Like the burning of financial regulation and the gradual disappearance of a culture of restraint within the financial sector that could lead to abuse and a hollowing out of the system, the peace in Europe requires constant maintenance.
The arguments against the EU deserving the prize seem weak to me. That the EU did not bring peace to the Western Balkans in the '90s is a low point in its history, but the EU didn't (and doesn't) have that kind of foreign policy and defence power if the Member States don't act. That's not to say that the EU would have done a fantastic job if it did have those powers (who can guess what might have happened?), but the EU's capabilities for promoting peace outside its borders are restricted to the carrot of enlargement, peacekeeping, and foreign aid - not dealing with hot conflicts. The soft power brought by the EU to the former Yugoslav states through the promise of enlargement - integration into the peace and economic system of the continent - has helped boost the movement toward the democratic and peaceful European mainstream in those countries.
And while I feel that there are issues with the timing, I don't think the EU deserves the award any less now for what it has already achieved. The current economic policies may be wrong, but the mission of creating a Europe where war is unthinkable has been largely achieved thanks in large part to the EU.
Problems with timing and intent
Though there's peace between the Member States and no suggestion of armed conflict, the social problems that have scared the lives of millions within the EU as a result of the economic crisis and misguided economic policy led by the European Council makes the award ring hollow. Though the EU deserves the prize for its work, the motive behind the award seems to lend the EU some political capital to help it solve the crisis. A Nobel prize awarded to boost peace efforts is by definition controversial and is vital and necessary work for the Nobel Committee. But here the questions for resolving the crisis are essentially questions of domestic policy, and I think it's a bit too far removed from the classical peace building work. It would have been preferable if the award was given in circumstances that better recalled the good work of the EU, rather than being delivered as a pointed reminder that we risk messing up our continent and the global economy.
Highlighting the EU's Shame
Increasingly, the intended message behind the prize seems to me to shame the EU: it has achieved a lot, and it could achieve more by way of solving its own crisis, but so far it is failing. Pro-Europeans should not see this simply as a boost to the credibility of the EU (as if credibility could be so easily boosted), but take seriously the challenge of conflict resolution. The current EU system is failing at resolving the conflict and tensions within it, and the solution applied to the crisis should not just be about finding the right technical remedy, but in fashioning a system that all Member States and citizens can buy into. This means a greater European democracy, baked up with substance - a project not to be left to elites, but dependant on citizens too.
Using the Nobel prize to help boost a political position that is largely domestic (as in the case of awarding Obama with the prize), devalues the Nobel Prize. Even though the peace aspect is less indirect in this case, it's still a bit of a stretch in the current climate. The EU deserves the Peace Prize and it needs a shot in the arm, but it's unfortunate that it was the Nobel Committee that felt it had to take it upon themselves to make an argument for the EU. We should be doing better than this.
Showing posts with label peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peace. Show all posts
Monday, 15 October 2012
Monday, 7 June 2010
Flotilla Diplomacy
Following the Israeli raid on the flotilla of activists carrying aid to the blockaded Gaza strip there has been a massive international backlash, but will the EU be able to forge a common policy? In some ways, it's a more opportune time, given the uniform "swing" of opinion against Israel, and the creation of the High Representative and European Council President roles creates some need to show that the institutional reforms will pay off - and shouldn't the EU be able to act in its own backyard?
It will never be easy to have a common policy on the Middle East Peace Process that goes beyond the outline structure of a two-state solution, but it's important that Europe gets involved to facilitate it, and this demands agreeing on the detail. Sarkozy has suggested European or international forces policing boats shipping in aid to prevent arms being shipped in. It's a good start, since it would hopefully go some way to easing the situation for Palestinians and allowing Israel to slowly back out of the politics of blockade - though it's important that we don't slip into a situation where we end up legitimising and helping the blockade. I'm tempted to suggest a Bosina-like solution or interim measure for Gaza (and maybe the West Bank too) - i.e. international protectorate that would build a functioning state, and hopefully police and prevent attacks from the territory while denying Israel the opportunity to attack or blockade it. But then, the Bosnia case hasn't been a proven success yet...
The EU also needs to demand and international element to the inquiry on last week's raid. Israel might be smarting after the last international report (the Goldsmith Inquiry on the settlements, which was very scathing of Israel's role), but the fact is that it took place in international waters, and there is a glaring question of international law that cannot be denied. PR-wise, Israel's attempts to spin the issue in a more favourable light haven't worked, and, though it may not agree, admitting error and having an inquiry with international involvement would be the best option for it. The EU should demand the international element because it is required of the situation and the EU's values - particularly the need to uphold international law.
Some states will favour a tough stance, like Ireland, which backed the last flotilla boat (the crew and passengers were returned to Ireland today), though other states, may not want to go as far as pledging action: how far would Germany feel it could go? Ireland has asked Ashton to put Israel on the agenda for the next Council meeting. Will Ashton be able to channel the differing views into some sort of coherent policy? It'll be an uphill struggle - reading the EUobserver article, it looks like Ashton is out of the loop to a large degree (it doesn't seem to have been a good week for her - there seem to be a few foreign policy ideas being pushed at the EU level without her being consulted).
The idea of another boat carrying MEPs seems to be floating about - perhaps we'll end up sending boatfuls of politicians until Israel gives up and ends the blockade? Diplomacy via flotilla.
It will never be easy to have a common policy on the Middle East Peace Process that goes beyond the outline structure of a two-state solution, but it's important that Europe gets involved to facilitate it, and this demands agreeing on the detail. Sarkozy has suggested European or international forces policing boats shipping in aid to prevent arms being shipped in. It's a good start, since it would hopefully go some way to easing the situation for Palestinians and allowing Israel to slowly back out of the politics of blockade - though it's important that we don't slip into a situation where we end up legitimising and helping the blockade. I'm tempted to suggest a Bosina-like solution or interim measure for Gaza (and maybe the West Bank too) - i.e. international protectorate that would build a functioning state, and hopefully police and prevent attacks from the territory while denying Israel the opportunity to attack or blockade it. But then, the Bosnia case hasn't been a proven success yet...
The EU also needs to demand and international element to the inquiry on last week's raid. Israel might be smarting after the last international report (the Goldsmith Inquiry on the settlements, which was very scathing of Israel's role), but the fact is that it took place in international waters, and there is a glaring question of international law that cannot be denied. PR-wise, Israel's attempts to spin the issue in a more favourable light haven't worked, and, though it may not agree, admitting error and having an inquiry with international involvement would be the best option for it. The EU should demand the international element because it is required of the situation and the EU's values - particularly the need to uphold international law.
Some states will favour a tough stance, like Ireland, which backed the last flotilla boat (the crew and passengers were returned to Ireland today), though other states, may not want to go as far as pledging action: how far would Germany feel it could go? Ireland has asked Ashton to put Israel on the agenda for the next Council meeting. Will Ashton be able to channel the differing views into some sort of coherent policy? It'll be an uphill struggle - reading the EUobserver article, it looks like Ashton is out of the loop to a large degree (it doesn't seem to have been a good week for her - there seem to be a few foreign policy ideas being pushed at the EU level without her being consulted).
The idea of another boat carrying MEPs seems to be floating about - perhaps we'll end up sending boatfuls of politicians until Israel gives up and ends the blockade? Diplomacy via flotilla.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Perpetual Peace Process
Northern Ireland is back in the news, and this time it's not because of sex and money. The more familiar peace process crisis has returned (though, technically, it never really went away), with the devolution of police and justice powers to the regional government in Belfast the central issue (apart from all the other issues). Once again the British Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach have waded in to try and sort the mess out, and, with no deal reached today, set a deadline of 48 hours for the main parties to strike a deal, or the two governments will set out their own proposals.
It's been almost 12 years since the Good Friday Agreement (or Belfast Agreement) which set up the devolved regional government in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland had its own government from 1922-72 until the outbreak of the Troubles led to London imposing direct control (known as "direct rule"). The new system is a consociational one: in other words, both communities share power. This was to ensure that the institutions would have a broad cross-community support, which was absent from the first period of regional government. But while the Assembly and Executive are seen as legitimate, they're also seen as ineffective - after all, it's been 12 years and we're still stuck in the same old process, with the same old arguments.
It's hard to explain to people who didn't grow up in NI exactly what it's all about, and every time I try it always strikes me how ridiculous the whole thing must sound.
So, here it goes with the very, very brief and crude description of the state of play [Warning: may contain traces of exasperated cynicism]:
- The government (Executive) is a coalition of four parties, but the main ones are a party of former revolutionaries/rebels (Sinn Féin) and a party of reactionary fundamentalist Christians (DUP).
- Sinn Féin wants the devolution of police and justice powers to the Executive/Assembly because it would complete the set of devolved powers, and because the whole issue of decommissioning of the IRA's weapons has been resolved.
- The DUP want other issues to be settled in the deal, including the abolition of the Parades Commission (PC).
- The PC was set up to restrict/ban contentious parades, in practice this mainly concerns the parades of the unionist Orange Order (or the "Loyal Orders", which commemorate the overthrow of an English king and the enthronement of the Dutch Staatholder William of Orange in the 17th century [I know this might not make sense, but it's best not to think about it]). Some of their parades run through nationalist areas, and have been sources of what we might politely call tension.
- Sinn Féin are angry at what they see as a precondition to any deal, and feel that they shouldn't have to make many more concessions because the DUP have blocked the introduction of an Irish Language Act and other Sinn Féin pet policies. They don't want to look weak.
- The DUP are hurting from the Robinson sex scandal and are worried about loosing support to the more extreme unionist TUV party. Want a political victory and obstructionism worked well with decommissioning.
- DUP & Sinn Féin don't really want an election, but the brinkmanship may bring it about.
- The other 2 (more moderate) parties are angry about just generally being ignored; increasingly only get publicity involving them being angry about being increasingly ignored.
- IF a deal is reached, the minister who takes up the portfolio can neither be from the DUP or SF parties because they don't trust each other and it may be the leader of the (tiny) opposition cross-community party. Maybe.
The line in Yes, Minister that government isn't so much a team as a loose confederation of warring tribes is perhaps more apt in this case.
What's so dispiriting is that politics really hasn't changed. There is still the sense that a gain for one community is a loss for the other. Both sides are guilty of this, but the DUP is unbelievably explicit and brash in its approach - in other words, the biggest party of government and the holder of the First Minister's office (which is a joint equal office with the deputy FM, despite the name) sees gloating about keeping the leading nationalist party - their government partners - down and out as "good politics". Is it any wonder that more extremist parties and groups are emerging if politics aren't being normalised? Maintaining such attitudes legitimises the extremes while the paralysis of the Executive mean that moderate voters loose faith in the purpose of government and are less likely to vote.
When decommissioning was achieved and the DUP and Sinn Féin apparently reconciled, some people thought that people would move to more moderate politics, but the weakness of the moderate parties (who refuse to leave the government and set themselves up as a separate alternative) and the ineffectiveness of the government mean that there's little oxygen for the moderates.
So the perpetual peace process trundles on, forever on life support...
It's been almost 12 years since the Good Friday Agreement (or Belfast Agreement) which set up the devolved regional government in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland had its own government from 1922-72 until the outbreak of the Troubles led to London imposing direct control (known as "direct rule"). The new system is a consociational one: in other words, both communities share power. This was to ensure that the institutions would have a broad cross-community support, which was absent from the first period of regional government. But while the Assembly and Executive are seen as legitimate, they're also seen as ineffective - after all, it's been 12 years and we're still stuck in the same old process, with the same old arguments.
It's hard to explain to people who didn't grow up in NI exactly what it's all about, and every time I try it always strikes me how ridiculous the whole thing must sound.
So, here it goes with the very, very brief and crude description of the state of play [Warning: may contain traces of exasperated cynicism]:
- The government (Executive) is a coalition of four parties, but the main ones are a party of former revolutionaries/rebels (Sinn Féin) and a party of reactionary fundamentalist Christians (DUP).
- Sinn Féin wants the devolution of police and justice powers to the Executive/Assembly because it would complete the set of devolved powers, and because the whole issue of decommissioning of the IRA's weapons has been resolved.
- The DUP want other issues to be settled in the deal, including the abolition of the Parades Commission (PC).
- The PC was set up to restrict/ban contentious parades, in practice this mainly concerns the parades of the unionist Orange Order (or the "Loyal Orders", which commemorate the overthrow of an English king and the enthronement of the Dutch Staatholder William of Orange in the 17th century [I know this might not make sense, but it's best not to think about it]). Some of their parades run through nationalist areas, and have been sources of what we might politely call tension.
- Sinn Féin are angry at what they see as a precondition to any deal, and feel that they shouldn't have to make many more concessions because the DUP have blocked the introduction of an Irish Language Act and other Sinn Féin pet policies. They don't want to look weak.
- The DUP are hurting from the Robinson sex scandal and are worried about loosing support to the more extreme unionist TUV party. Want a political victory and obstructionism worked well with decommissioning.
- DUP & Sinn Féin don't really want an election, but the brinkmanship may bring it about.
- The other 2 (more moderate) parties are angry about just generally being ignored; increasingly only get publicity involving them being angry about being increasingly ignored.
- IF a deal is reached, the minister who takes up the portfolio can neither be from the DUP or SF parties because they don't trust each other and it may be the leader of the (tiny) opposition cross-community party. Maybe.
The line in Yes, Minister that government isn't so much a team as a loose confederation of warring tribes is perhaps more apt in this case.
What's so dispiriting is that politics really hasn't changed. There is still the sense that a gain for one community is a loss for the other. Both sides are guilty of this, but the DUP is unbelievably explicit and brash in its approach - in other words, the biggest party of government and the holder of the First Minister's office (which is a joint equal office with the deputy FM, despite the name) sees gloating about keeping the leading nationalist party - their government partners - down and out as "good politics". Is it any wonder that more extremist parties and groups are emerging if politics aren't being normalised? Maintaining such attitudes legitimises the extremes while the paralysis of the Executive mean that moderate voters loose faith in the purpose of government and are less likely to vote.
When decommissioning was achieved and the DUP and Sinn Féin apparently reconciled, some people thought that people would move to more moderate politics, but the weakness of the moderate parties (who refuse to leave the government and set themselves up as a separate alternative) and the ineffectiveness of the government mean that there's little oxygen for the moderates.
So the perpetual peace process trundles on, forever on life support...
Friday, 9 January 2009
Gaza Conflict
Both sides have rejected the UN ceasefire resolution, it seems.
There has been some criticism in the media over the responses of the US, EU and the international community in general, but I think (though I'm not anywhere near an expert in this area), that there is very little that the international community can do in this instance and in the Israeli-Palastinian situation in general. Both sides need couragous people to take the necessary steps for peace.
There seems to be two options:
1. Gaza and the West Bank become part of Israel with the Palatinians as full citizens with full human rights, etc. (Which is not really an option).
2. The two state solution is implemented. This means that issues of borders and Jerusalem, etc. will need to be dealt with seriously and with a willingness to make talks work. Such a solution cannot be imposed from the outside but can only be brought about by the two sides engaging and compromising with each other.
All of this is hardly a great insight, but the international community can only encourage, not impose a solution.
With respect to the EU and the difficultly of taking a strong common position in the crisis, I'm not sure it really makes too much difference. The EU states agree that the two state solution is the one that's needed. There would be little the EU, or the international community, can actually do in the current crisis other than try and repair the damage later; sending peace monitors, etc. Does anyone seriously expect - or even advocate - that the EU or the UN should send in troops now to forcefully end the fighting?
What has happened - whatever the rights, wrongs, reasons or excuses behind the actions of either side - will have inflamed passions further and made renewed peace efforts improbable, if not impossible for the time being. All the international community can do is to reduce the suffering as much as it can, and encourage and call for new peace efforts. It cannot make such efforts for them.
There has been some criticism in the media over the responses of the US, EU and the international community in general, but I think (though I'm not anywhere near an expert in this area), that there is very little that the international community can do in this instance and in the Israeli-Palastinian situation in general. Both sides need couragous people to take the necessary steps for peace.
There seems to be two options:
1. Gaza and the West Bank become part of Israel with the Palatinians as full citizens with full human rights, etc. (Which is not really an option).
2. The two state solution is implemented. This means that issues of borders and Jerusalem, etc. will need to be dealt with seriously and with a willingness to make talks work. Such a solution cannot be imposed from the outside but can only be brought about by the two sides engaging and compromising with each other.
All of this is hardly a great insight, but the international community can only encourage, not impose a solution.
With respect to the EU and the difficultly of taking a strong common position in the crisis, I'm not sure it really makes too much difference. The EU states agree that the two state solution is the one that's needed. There would be little the EU, or the international community, can actually do in the current crisis other than try and repair the damage later; sending peace monitors, etc. Does anyone seriously expect - or even advocate - that the EU or the UN should send in troops now to forcefully end the fighting?
What has happened - whatever the rights, wrongs, reasons or excuses behind the actions of either side - will have inflamed passions further and made renewed peace efforts improbable, if not impossible for the time being. All the international community can do is to reduce the suffering as much as it can, and encourage and call for new peace efforts. It cannot make such efforts for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)