Who is Worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?

Image credits: Kirill Levin

Online Comment Editor James Bennett discusses to whom the Nobel Peace Prize should be given.

The annual awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize is the culmination of a famously secretive nomination and voting process. Although no shortlist is entirely complete or accurate, nor claims to be so, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons seems to be a surprising choice of recipient for many in a year where Malala Yousafzai has garnered such international attention and done so much to implore national leaders to seek peaceful solutions to violent conflict as well as campaign for girls education. This is not necessarily to say that the OCPW as an organisation is an undeserving recipient of the prize, but there is perhaps a case to be made which says that it is not always being awarded to people and organisations that qualify under the specific criteria laid out by Nobel in his will.

Probably the most famous recipient of the prize in recent years is President Barack Obama in 2009. Obama was awarded the prize, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. Certainly, Obama has made many advances in international relations and admittedly in the ending of combat operations in Afghanistan but it is important to remember that Alfred Nobel was very specific about the criteria that a recipient of his Peace Prize would fulfil. In his will, he specifies that the prize should be awarded, “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” With this in mind many might argue that Obama is an example of an unworthy recipient of the prize.

The most specific criteria that Nobel describes is the abolition or reduction of standing armies. Obama is one of the few recipients of the prize who has any sort of direct power to affect this change. Instead, the American Regular Army has increased in size by at least 89,406 under his administration from a reported strength of 456,651 soldiers in September 2009 to 546,057 in September 2012. Now admittedly, the prize was awarded in 2009 and as such this particular statistic might not be held directly against the Nobel Committee, but for the fact that in his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama supported, “plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops”. So, not only did Obama pledge to do the exact opposite of abolish or reduce a standing army, but he actually exceeded his own expectations. The other criteria described by Nobel are perhaps less specific and in many ways it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Obama had done much for fraternity between nations and the holding and promotion of peace congresses, but more so than any other person or organisation in 2009?

All of this to say that the Peace Prize is being awarded to those who are in many instances doing exceptional work, but not always to those who are doing the peacemaking work outlined by Nobel himself. To examine the OCPW in light of this they too do not appear to exemplarily adhere to all of Nobel’s criteria. The OPCW’s convention has been ratified by 190 nations and uniting almost all of the nations of the world behind an abhorrence of chemical warfare is admirable and absolutely a necessary victory in peacemaking. However, Syria only ratified the convention just over a month ago and many would argue that this is too little too late for those who suffered in the recent attacks. Even the United States and Russia have not yet met their obligations under the convention.

What good is this type of convention if a nation can ratify it without having met its obligations? Second, although perhaps a point of semantics, the OPCW makes no attempts to abolish or reduce standing armies, instead focussing purely on the prohibition of chemical weapons. It could even be argued that a reduction in chemical warfare might result in an increase in standing armies to fill the offensive void. This is not to say that a standing army is not preferable to any instance of chemical warfare, but it should have been considered as an implication by a committee which is directly responsible for the execution of the Peace Prize’s criteria. Finally, the OPCW is not in the business of holding or promoting peace conferences. Although they may benefit from any peace talks which allow them to enter hostile areas, this is not the organisation’s primary concern and if that was the criteria which was being considered then there are any number of organisations which do more to actively hold and promote said conferences.

If the Nobel Peace Prize committee wish to remain true to the convictions of its namesake, future year’s recipients should really be chosen much more carefully, with the intention of rewarding those who do in fact promote fraternity between nations, work towards the abolition or reduction of standing armies and holding and promoting peace congresses.

Malala Yousafzai would have been an excellent choice as the 2013 prize recipient.  Before and after being shot by the Taliban in October 2012, her dedication to peace has been inspiring. Yousafzai admitted, “I used to think that a Talib would come and he would kill me. But then I said, ‘If he comes, what would you do Malala?’ Then I would reply, ‘Just take a shoe and hit him’ but then I said, ‘If you hit a Talib with your shoe then there would be no difference between you and the Talib. You must not treat others with cruelty and that harshly, you must fight others through peace and through dialogue and through education, then I would tell him how important education is and that I even want education for your children as well. That is what I want to tell you, now do what you want.” Yousafzai similarly used her audience with the Obamas to implore the president to reconsider drone attacks, suggesting that they, “fuel terrorism”.

At every opportunity, Malala Yousafzai has spoken of peace, education and non-violence, even towards those that would have her dead.  Perhaps an individual who would not even defend herself against her attacker with a shoe is a more worthy recipient of the Peace Prize than the OPCW, perhaps not. The point remains that the Nobel committee has deviated far from the criteria specifically left to them by a man whose legacy was only ever meant to celebrate those who worked for the betterment of mankind at any and all cost.

James Bennett, Online Comment Editor

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

What is… The European Union?

Better off in, better off out… the debate is endless, but public knowledge about this international organisation is not. Just what is the European Union?

the European Union Flag
Image credits: R/DV/RS

What we call today the European Union has existed in various forms since its creation. Currently, this political and economic partnership exists between twenty-eight countries which are, unsurprisingly, situated in Europe.

History

It all began after the Second World War, the idea being that countries which trade would be less likely to go to war with each other. By 1958, the European Economic Community (EEC) was established out of the 1951 European Coal and Steel Community between six initial countries – Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, France, Italy and the Netherlands –freeing up the borders between them to allow better trade links.

We, the United Kingdom (in case you were not so sure), have always been a bunch of sceptics, refusing to make the “Inner Six” a “Seven” in the beginning, and then later joining in 1973 (with a bit of persuasion from the USA and the Suez Crisis). Shockingly, or perhaps not at all, our [poor] relationship with the French meant it would take three attempts at membership and Charles de Gaulle’s departure from the French presidency for them, fearing too much US involvement, to finally stop saying non and ruining our chances.

Now

The EEC became the European Union (EU) in November 1993 under the Maastricht Treaty, establishing what are known as its “Three Pillars”: the European Community – removing the word “Economic” to show the wider policy range it now covers; Common Foreign and Security Policy; and Police and Judicial Co-Operation in Criminal Matters.  Although the latter two Pillars are largely based on international co-operation between member states with representatives working together on relevant issues, the first Pillar contains the supra-national institutions – those who have authority over individual national governments – and all of their work.

To begin, the European Commission is responsible for proposing legislation, upholding the Treaties they establish and running the EU from day to day. Each member state sends a single representative, making a total of twenty-eight members. The President of the European Commission is elected from these twenty-eight by the European Parliament. Don’t confuse this with the President of the European Union (who is actually the head of the European Council), currently President van Rompuy of Belgium!

The European Council has no strict power to make laws, but it is a body of the heads of government of each member state and is responsible for “the general political directions and priorities” of the EU according to the Lisbon Treaty. It acts as a body to be the presidency of the Union, and the head of the Council is its representative.

European Parliament, Strasbourg
Image credits: Salim Shadid

The next institution is the European Parliament. If you have ever voted for a Member of the European Parliament as we are charged to do every five years (the next time being in 2014), this is where the 766 of them elected across the Union work. Depending on their political opinions, they join forces with politicians of similar views to create larger voting blocs such as the Greens or the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Its job is to debate and vote on legislation, although it can’t actually use its initiative to create it itself. It does, however, have the second largest electorate (or voting population) in the world after India, and the largest trans-national democratic electorate, with 376 million eligible voters at the last elections.

Despite its lack of initiative, it does share power over the budget with the Council, and has to hold the European Commission shares equal legislative and budgetary powers with the Council and, just to confuse you, has its own President – currently Martin Schulz.

Finally, there is the European High Court of Justice which is the highest court of the EU and based in Luxembourg. It is mainly responsible for making sure all EU law is applied fairly across the Union. Again, each member state sends one judge and so there are twenty-eight of them, although it’s uncommon for all of them to hear every single case.

The Euro

Coming fully into force in 2002, the euro is the currency of seventeen of the twenty-eight member states, also known as the eurozone. A better currency for trading purposes, as well as a sense of unity, the eurozone is estimated by the International Monetary Fund as the second largest economy in the world, and the euro is the most-traded currency after, of course, the US dollar. If you’re as strange as I am (and commiserations if you are), you may have noticed from your travels to the eurozone – perhaps Spain, France, Finland or Ireland – that each country has a different design on the back of coins initially introduced into that country. “RF” for “République Francaise” or the French Republic is stamped across the French euro coins, for example.

The euro has been the cause of much debate and controversy in the UK. You won’t need me to point out to you that we are still in possession of the Great British Pound Sterling for currency, but there has been past discussion amongst British politicians about abandoning it for the euro. Whilst the Maastricht Treaty establishing the EU compelled most member states to swap their pesetas, francs and deutschmarks (among many others) for the euro, Denmark and Britain both notably negotiated exceptions.

New Labour, elected to power in 1997, was cautiously optimistic about joining, dependent upon our passing five particular economic tests first although it was a relatively minor issue in the end, despite William Hague’s decision to run his 2001 election campaign based, bizarrely, almost entirely on keeping the pound. Of course, since the economic crisis and the euro descending into madness, any British subscription to the euro now seems unlikely.

So where should you stand on the EU?

Paying any significant attention to the news and current affairs will make you very much aware of strongly-held and strongly-fought opinions about the Union. Indeed, we have a whole political party dedicated to the cause: the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP.

If you have made it this far through the article, you will perhaps have noted one of the major, particularly British, complaints about the European Union: the bureaucracy is an apparent nightmare. The idea of creating institutions each with their own responsibilities might have seemed wondrous, but instead there are a thousand and one different jobs to do by different people and a fair few “Presidents” and “High Commissioners” to go with it.

Many of said leaders are unelected which is cause for concern for those who are worried that the EU is too close turning into a supra-nation, and generally speaking, election turnout is close to pathetic – so those who debate our laws are not really accountable at all; in the last election, 43 per cent of all European voters cast their ballot.

The one nation problem is another worry in itself. People are not keen to lose their national identities which have been so well forged across the centuries, and many have nothing like a “European” identity. Particularly in Britain, our island mentality restricts us from being too keen to get too involved, and makes us angry when statistics are thrown around about how many of our laws are passed down from the European Parliament.

Eurosceptic politicians shout very loudly however, and those who are pro-EU keep their mouths closed far too much in comparison.

In an increasingly globalised world, it is silly to isolate ourselves from co-operation and partnership. Granted, prosecuting shopkeepers who price goods in pounds and ounces and not grams and kilograms is rather a ridiculous preoccupation for the European Union and anger over it is understandable, as is trying to tell us that Cadbury’s is not real chocolate (come on!!). But without the EU, travelling between mainland European countries would not be as easy as it is – the Schengen Agreement stops you from having to pull out your passport and go through customs and immigration checks every time you cross a border; trade would be restricted; police investigations would be more difficult across borders.

Image credits: Francisco Antunes

Nor could you just go and get a job in an EU country like you can now (provided there are any). Having spent a year living and working in France, without the EU I would have had a much more difficult time trying to set up my residency status and getting healthcare coverage than I did, and would have wasted my time on that rather than learning a new culture and language (and eating cheese – to perpetuate a stereotype).

All in all, the European Union is not about infringing national sovereignty and imposing petty laws on people. Or it ought not to be. It ought to be about co-operation and achieving bigger goals. Politicians argue that we have too many immigrants now – conveniently forgetting or simply not mentioning our chances to go and experience these other countries – and that the EU it costs too much and we aren’t getting the benefit from it back in the UK and if that is true then it is because we are not making the most of our involvement and reaping the benefit we could have whilst we dither on the edge.

Closing borders simply turns us into bigger xenophobes than we already are.

And if none of this convinces you, well then I suppose it has allowed us to hear a fair few stupid quotes…

Top Eight Quotes from European Politicians

1. “Sod off, you prick.” – Nicolas Sarkozy to journalist
2. “[Mr Obama is] young, handsome and suntanned.” – Silvio Berlusconi
3.  Bonus: “Ah, Barack Obama. You won’t believe it, but the two of them sunbathe together, because the wife is also tanned.”) – Silvio Berlusconi
4. “You have all the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk and the question that I want to ask, that we all want to ask, is ‘Who are you?’” – UKIP’s Nigel Farage to the President of the European Council
5.  “You have lost a good opportunity to shut up.” – Nicolas Sarkozy to David Cameron
6.  “She says she’s on a diet and then helps herself to a second helping of cheese.” – Nicolas Sarkozy about Angela Merkel
7. “China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.” – Charles de Gaulle
8. “In Italy, I am almost seen as German for my workaholism. Also I am from Milan, the city where people work the hardest. Work, work, work – I am almost German.” – Silvio Berlusconi (perhaps I ought not have spoken about stereotypes)

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

Fifty Years On, Are We Living Martin Luther King's Dream?

Fifty years after the March on Washington, Online Features Editor Meg Lawrence discusses its impact, and where the civil rights movement stands in America today.

Image Credits: Michael Ochs Archives/ Alex Wong/ Getty Images

When I was 11 years old, I was asked by my English teacher to write a speech about my hero. Martin Luther King’s was a name that stood apart; he was fundamental to the American civil rights movement, and was a key catalyst for equality. It is arguable that Martin Luther King was one of the most important social leaders of his time, and his legacy is awe-inspiring.

Perhaps one of the most memorable and metamorphic moments for the civil rights movement was King’s March on Washington, and the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech, both of which occurred fifty years ago this week, on August 28, 1963. So significant was this event, it is credited for helping pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and later the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Speaking at the fiftieth anniversary event, former US President Bill Clinton said: ‘This march, and that speech, changed America.’

Martin Luther King grew up in the midst of the injustice caused by the Jim Crow Laws, lighting a spark in him that would burn all the way to Washington. King’s first true experience of social inequality was when he was forced to attend a different school to the white friends he had grown up with, and was forbidden from going to their houses. One boy’s childhood experience was enough to incur the momentous March on Washington 30 years later.

The Words ‘I Have a Dream’ have entered history as one of the most important phrases of all time. Martin Luther King had a dream of racial equality throughout America and the world, and today, fifty years after he voiced his dream, racial equality has largely improved.

It is undeniable that the appointment of America’s first black President, Barack Obama, was a key moment in the history of racial equality, and marked a key turning point in the civil rights movement. Speaking in Washington on the anniversary of King’s march, Obama said: ‘America changed for you and me.’

He added: ‘Because they marched, the civil rights law was passed. Because they marched, the voting rights law was signed. Because they marched, doors of opportunity and education swung open so their daughters and sons could finally imagine a life for themselves beyond washing somebody else’s laundry or shining somebody else’s shoes. Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed and Congress changed and, yes, eventually the White House changed.’

Whilst change has certainly been praised throughout coverage of the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the March on Washington, the anniversary itself highlights the fact that there are still many areas of society where complete racial equality is yet to be achieved. President Obama, whilst heading the White House, has been unable to implement the policy he promised due to a lack of support and confidence in his benefactors in government.

On 6th August of this year, upon making a speech on housing and education in Arizona, President Obama faced racist chants. Among the protesters, some sang ‘Bye Bye Black Sheep’, whilst protesters such as Deanne Bartram raised a sign saying, ‘Impeach the Half-White Muslim!’

A report featured on USA Today’s website this week highlights further examples of racism that reflect the same treatment of black Americans fifty years ago. This summer, 25 black customers were refused service in a Wild Wing Café, after a white customer said they made them feel uncomfortable. Whilst this is a rare occurrence, it is evidence of the fact that racism hasn’t been abolished in the US.

Fifty years ago, the hunger for racial equality filled the air surrounding Washington, and dispersed throughout America. Whilst we have used the anniversary to celebrate Martin Luther King, and the progression of the civil rights movement, it is also important to use it to remind ourselves that we need to push for more; the fight has not yet been won, and the dream is not complete. We still need to look to the day when all people can say, “Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.”

Ten years ago, I named Martin Luther King as my hero. If asked again today, I would give the same reply.

Meg Lawrence, Online Features Editor