The news of the EU’s prize win is already inspiring more nationalistic rage rather than quelling it. The Guardian reported that the decision was greeted with disbelief by many in Greece, with some saying that their nation is at an economic war partly because of the new Peace Prize winner.

The greatest asset of the Nobel Peace Prize is not its immediate impact but the fact that it celebrates achievements and noble deeds that will outlive our current worries and will set examples for humanity. To use the prize as a political tool is to ruin that invaluable asset.

On Friday, the 27-nation European Union received the Nobel Peace prize for six decades of contributions “to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.”

The $1.2 million, or 930,000 euros, awarded prize comes during the union’s biggest internal crisis since it was established in the 1950s, the Associated Press reported.

Unfortunately, the prize money is a drop in the bucket for Europe’s indebted nations like Greece, Spain and Portugal.

After Alfred Nobel’s death in 1896, his executors discovered that the inventor of dynamite had secretly set aside about 35 million Swedish kronor (about $225 million today) for the creation of five annual prizes to honor those who bestowed the “greatest benefit on mankind” in science, literature and diplomacy.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 to the European Union (EU). Although conceding in its press release that “the EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee rationalized its choice by claiming that it “wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU’s most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights.

In a speech to the Council of Europe last January, British Prime Minister David Cameron explained the distorted priorities of the EU’s approach to human rights:

“We do have a real problem when it comes to foreign national who threaten our security. The problem today is that you can end up with someone who has no right to live in your country, who you are convinced – and have good reason to be convinced – means to do your country harm. And yet there are circumstances in which you cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them. So having put in place every possible safeguard to ensure that (human rights) rights are not violated, we still cannot fulfill our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them.”

The Nobel Committee made a dumb decision in selecting the EU for its 2012 peace prize, squandering an opportunity to use its peace prize for a truly noble purpose. For example, instead they could have selected two of Nigeria’s prominent religious leaders, who were nominated for the prize this year. They are the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, John Onaiyekan, and the Muslim Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammed Sa’ad Abubakar III.

Nigeria is split almost evenly between Muslims and Christians. With the violent Islamic sect, Boko Haram, regularly committing atrocities and threatening to forcibly replace the current constitutional government with a theocracy based on Sharia law, Onaiyekan and the Sultan have been working for peace between the adherents of the two major religions in the country.

The Nobel Committee could have provided a morale boost to the two religious leaders for their courage.  Instead, it settled for an award to the unaccountable transnational bureaucracy that defines the European Union today.

The recipient, which Nobel instructed should be the person who has performed the “best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses,” is determined by a five-member committee appointed by Norway’s Parliament. Nominations are solicited from an undisclosed number of contributors–past winners, prominent institutions–and the winner is decided by a simple majority vote.

Reaction to the committee’s choice has often been anything but peaceful. In 1973, Henry Kissinger and North Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho shared the award for negotiating a cease-fire that ended U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War–despite Kissinger’s role in the secret bombing of Cambodia. (Tho rejected his award, the only person to do so, saying there was no peace in his country.) One Nobel Committee member resigned in protest over Yasser Arafat’s 1994 win, calling the Palestinian leader a “terrorist.” Even Joseph Stalin was nominated twice for his efforts to end World War II (he did not win).

Much has been made of EU  win and the committee’s vague reasoning. Unfortunately, those seeking answers are out of luck: Nobel documents are sealed for 50 years.

All Nobel Peace Prizes

The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 93 times to 124 Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2012, 100 individuals and 24 organizations. Since International Committee of the Red Cross was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1917, 1944 and 1963, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1954 and 1981, 100 individuals and 21 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Infographic by The Guardian

The Nobel Prizes for Literature and Peace this year have become highly politicized — the former by the Chinese state propaganda machine and Beijing-bashing commentators, and the latter by the committee that awards the coveted awards.

As in

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1930515,00.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50281

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-eu-gets-a-nobel-peace-prize/2012/10/14/ad3a7a48-158e-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/10/nobel-prize-winners-eurozone-award-controversy/

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/world-issues/2012/10/16/357714/p2/Nobel-Prizes.htm