The EU Profile: Peace Prize Paradox and Economic Control

Introduction: The Nobel Prize and the EU's True Profile

In 2012, the European Union (EU) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its work in "the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe" for more than half a century. Lauded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee for its commitment to reconciling Germany and France in the post-war period, the EU joined such notable persons as Barack Obama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. Ironically, however, Obama has gone on to be criticized as one of the worst violators of human rights in the 21st century and as a worse war criminal than G. W. Bush. The same critics aim similar remarks at the EU. The documentary film EUphoria takes a critical look at the EU and its "peace" efforts and shows how, as in the case of the American President, one swallow does not a summer make. This paper will discuss the history of the EU and show how its profile as a proponent for peace is often a screen for more dubious economic forms of control, as seen in countries like Ukraine and Greece, which have been heavily impacted by the policies of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

"But just what is the European Union exactly?" asks Critical Productions' (2014) EUphoria, and "How did it come about? How does it function today? Is it living up to Nobel Peace Prize winning policies?" These questions begin the documentary film, setting up the framework of investigation into the union of nations—not all of which currently appear very happy to be part of that union (Durden 2015). EUphoria states that the EU is a "project without a blueprint," but is that really the case? There are 28 member nations in the EU, all part of a system of governmental and economic institutions, such as the Council of the EU, the European Council, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the ECB, the Court of Auditors, and the European Parliament. If anything, it appears the EU has enough blueprints to outlast bureaucracy itself. So why does EUphoria state that it has none? Perhaps the answer lies in what the EU decides to state publicly in typical political spin, and what it actually intends to do privately through its "Institutions"—also known as the Troika—which function as central banking cartels. Indeed, EUphoria begins by posing the question of the EU to analysts, all of whom agree that "the European Union began from good motives" because it was a hypothetical way to avoid future world war. However, the motives of the powers that be in the post-war years have been questioned by many scholars and researchers, and thus it is necessary to examine the history of the EU.

Historical Origins: From Treaty of Rome to Centralization

As Bagnai, Granville and Soy (2015) state, the post-war document that served as the stepping stone to the EU was the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the first line of which urges "an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe." This essential wording is pivotal for understanding what the EU is today: not so much a union of individual nations but rather a centralized structure with separate states subject to the policies of professional bureaucrats and bankers. Such centralization can be seen in the IMF's position towards Greece. As Bagnai, Granville and Soy (2015) show, the IMF "knew that Greece's debt was not sustainable, but decided to go ahead with the [bailout] 'because of the fear that spillovers from Greece would threaten the euro area and the global economy.'" Two points are worth noting in that admission: first, that the EU serves itself, not its individual member nations; second, that the EU is part of a much larger, wider scheme—the "global economy"—which is run by the same cartel of bankers that operates within the EU. The "global" scheme has, in fact, been likened to a Ponzi scheme (Novak 2014), which depends upon all the pieces remaining intact. If one goes bust, the whole scheme collapses. This explains the never-ending bailouts of Greece: the money "given" to Greece does not really go to Greece but rather to pay the interest on loans made by the EU "Institutions" (Spiegel and Hope 2015). Greece functions as a debt colony—a money-funneling apparatus (Varoufakis 2015).

From the beginning, the EU was an economic vehicle for centralization—not the peaceful solution to Europe's problems that modern pundits appear to make it seem. It grew out of the European Coal and Steel Community of 1951 and the European Economic Community of 1958. Its purpose was to oversee a single marketplace where control of European finances could be managed by a privileged few. It was never about easing boundary disputes, spreading democracy, or promoting freedom. As Schimmelfennig (2003) states, in the EU, "tariff barriers and other legal boundaries are used to exclude states from the benefits of free trade and other economic freedoms" (p. 22). The EU represents a merger of government and business across the continent. To support this scheme, "territorial reorganization" became necessary—an event fostered by the outcome of World War II, in which the Allied Powers were able to divide the spoils and restructure the European marketplace and institute new financial burdens and lending organizations (Brenner 1999: 431). Various treaties, such as the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, have been used to solidify the power and organizational structure of the EU. But even these treaties had to be pushed through in nations like Ireland, which initially rejected the Treaty of Lisbon, before doing a sudden about-face the following year.

From the beginning, the EU was a central banker's dream come true: oversight of the lending and borrowing of debt-ridden communities to be exploited via a Ponzi scheme setup with no accountability to anyone whatsoever except the votes of the democratic peoples of Europe. Modern societies have been conditioned to believe that their "system" of government is the best, that "democracy" is the highest form of government, and indeed that "democracy" is what they possess. The fact is, and this is what the EU shows, there is not much oversight granted to voters when their only choices are between two similar options. It is the men with the money who make the decisions in a democracy. As Peterson (1995) has shown, the EU's directives are determined long before voters show up at the polls.

Nonetheless, the EU gives the appearance of being a normal body of government, listing its values in Article I-2 of its constitution: "The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights" (Elgstrom and Smith 2006: 69). These values sound good and are accepted as good by all modern, liberal societies, but as Hughes (2009) shows, these values are only upheld when it is convenient for the EU or when it stands to gain something from them. Hughes cites the very different approaches of the EU to internal conflict in Ireland and Kosovo, raising the question of the EU's real motives.

EU Institutions and Mechanisms of Control

The seven institutions of the European Union are the Parliament, Council of the EU, European Commission, European Council, the ECB, Court of Justice, and the Court of Auditors. Legislative acts are part of the work of the Parliament and the Council of the EU. The "executive branch" is formed by the European Commission and the European Council. The ECB oversees the finances and economy, the Auditors are in charge of the budget, and the Court of Justice oversees interpretation of European Law. It is a vast, complex body of governing powers that makes any localized government in any nation-state seem puny by comparison.

But how do these powers exercise their muscle in such a vast body of nations as Europe? The question of legality is of importance, even if legalism and lawlessness are two sides of the same coin in modern politics. The EU issues regulations, decisions and directives, and each has a special meaning for the member nations.

Regulations are the most important as they carry the most weight at the time they are passed: regulations are laws that all states must abide by when they are passed. If individual states have laws within their own borders that contradict the EU regulation, the EU regulation overrides the states' laws. In effect, the EU is supreme via regulations—and this supremacy was, of course, the whole point. Central bankers have been in love with the idea of centralization for years: it makes controlling the purse strings of the world that much easier, so long as no one defaults on loans handed out by the bankers from their bottomless pockets full of fiat currency.

The Contradiction Between Values and Practice

Directives are less binding though their issuance requires that member states meet specific conditions within their borders. Directives allow the states to choose their own method of meeting these conditions, even if it does not give them any leeway regarding the conditions themselves.

Decisions are the least binding in the sense that they are issued only for specific businesses or countries or persons. These represent the overseeing of business, trade, and competition in the marketplace by the federal powers of the EU, designed to regulate the internal workings of the European market and thus the global market as well. These decisions are, in effect, the face of the EU and reveal the overall intention of the body of government: to control the economies of the continent and to influence those of the rest of the world.

So how did this corporate-centralized entity win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, when, as has been shown, there had never been more disgruntled members of the EU before then? One year after being awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize, Feldstein (2013) noted that the award was given "at a time when acrimony among the European Union's members" was at an all-time high (p. 434). The root of this acrimony, as Feldstein states, is fiscal responsibility: Germany's role in bailing out bankrupt countries and what the savior nation expects to get in return. That drama has played out for years, with the latest turn being the newly elected Greek government threatening to default on loans and possibly leave the EU altogether. Not only would the ECB and the IMF have to take measures to recoup their losses, but the exit could possibly set the stage for further exits, particularly from Spain or Italy—leaving the Union to collapse under its own weight.

Economic Policy and Debt Colonization

The answer that the mainstream media will give is that the EU's socioeconomic and environmental policies are so beneficial to mankind that the Nobel Committee could not help but recognize its contributions by awarding it the Peace Prize. A less mainstream answer might be, on the other hand, that the Nobel Committee is part and parcel of the same cartel managing the EU and that the awarding of prizes is more an attempt to generate hype and support than recognition for any real or beneficial service to humanity in the service of peace.

The EU's socioeconomic policies as drafted in the Lisbon Treaty, also known as the Reform Treaty, express such contradictory notions that it managed to appeal to both nationalists and centralists. For example, it provided a legal way for member countries to quit the EU if they so chose. But at the same time it essentially solidified the central authority of the EU by changing the way that member nations were required to ratify policies from a unanimous vote to a vote of a qualified majority. This gives the impression of being a concession to the different nations and their self-interests by making it more difficult for policies and legislation to pass; however, the qualified majority is really a double majority, which means that it is only really slightly less than a unanimous vote. Thus, the EU through sleight of hand creates an atmosphere of cooperation but at the same time simply pacifies member nations without giving them any more real authority than they had before the Treaty.

Environmental and Humanitarian Claims Examined

As UK's protests show, real reform in the name of immigration reform is a controversial topic. The UK suffers from migration because so many migrants come to their country seeking welfare, and EU laws make it difficult for the UK to turn such people away, who essentially become dependent on the system and add dead weight to the UK's economy. The indifference of countries like Germany to the UK's plight only reveals an underlying rivalry between the two major powers in European politics. What is bad for the UK is supposed to be bad for all, according to the pretense of the EU's socioeconomic policies and stated values in its constitution: but such pretense is only that—pretense—and it belies the fact that individual nations have individual interests that often clash with the private banking interests of the cartel overseeing the operation.

The EU's humanitarian aid packages are sent to developing countries: its budget nearing 1 billion euros, which considering the billions it takes to run a country from week to week is really just a drop in a bucket in a sea of socioeconomic problems. Also, considering that the loans given out to Greece are exponentially higher than the entire annual budget of the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department, it is hard to see how this work can be deserving of so meritorious a Prize as the Nobel—unless the Nobel Committee is counting the bailout of Greece as part of a humanitarian package. But if that is the case, it is a poor joke, because there is nothing humane about being forced to accept a loan that one can never possibly repay and thus being made a debt colony for funneling funds for a Ponzi scheme.

International Relations and Western Vassalage

So then maybe it is the EU's environmental policy that is so attractive to the Nobel Committee? Considering that at the date of its formation in the 1950s, the EU had no policy whatsoever regarding the environment makes this idea less plausible. It was not until 1987 that any legal framework for addressing environmental policy was initiated in the EU, in the Single European Act, and even then it was nothing of any great importance. Business has always superseded environmental safeguarding, and the EU has not been any different in its approach. The usual lip service has been given to environmental activists over the years but this is no different from the type of lip service given to nationalists and others who are displeased by the central power's approach to life and livelihood. Currently, top on the list of EU priorities regarding the environment is climate change and carbon controls. It wants to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent over the next five years and introduce more renewable energy into the marketplace. However, the trading of carbon credits is looked upon as being as lucrative as derivatives trading—and thus another piece in the Ponzi puzzle (Taibi 2010).

Similarly, the EU's international relationships are only what the West (i.e., Washington and its allies) wants them to be. Escobar (2015) has likened the EU to a vassal of larger Western powers that follows orders from the Pentagon and special-relationship think tanks, even to the detriment of individual nations' self-interests and sound business practices. The example in Ukraine serves as the most recent illustration, with Germany's Merkel and France's Hollande appealing directly to Putin to help end the crisis that was instigated by Western involvement in Ukraine. In short, the EU is subject to the same cartel that runs the West and that appears to be aiming for a final showdown for global hegemony with Russia and China and their plans for a Eurasian century.

Conclusion: The Prize as Performance

Although the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, its record of not supporting democracy (unless words count), of being essentially centralized in nature, of turning nations into debt colonies, and of operating through financial mechanisms that benefit a privileged few, is well known by much of the world that does not get its news from mainstream media sources. But for that part which does, the EU is representation of a modern liberal success story, and its display of centralization and stated humanitarianism make it an excellent choice for the Nobel Peace Prize—a fitting addition to the ranks of other laureates whose actual records have been contested by critics who examine the gap between stated values and actual outcomes.