How valid is the claim that the EU has delivered peace in

Europe?
 
9 MAY 2016
BY ANDREW WILLIAMS

A few years ago, the EU was awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize.  It
applauded the EU for its contribution over six decades to ‘the advancement of
peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe’ and being
instrumental in ‘transforming most of Europe from a continent of war to a
continent of peace.’
The Union has helped avoid war between the current members of the EU since
1945. David Cameron makes that very point today, reminding us that countries
previously at ‘each others’ throats’ now lived and worked together for peace. Even
Boris Johnson in the Leave camp has been reluctant to contradict the assertion. He
says the EU was ‘born of the highest motives – to keep the peace in Europe.’
But then, some years ago, when I was writing about the EU’s values, it occurred
to me that it was too simplistic to think of ‘peace’ as only meaning the absence of
war. Just as I wouldn’t define ‘love’ as the absence of ‘hatred’, I thought ‘peace’
had to imply more than just an end to military conflict between European states.
And now, as the Remain camp keeps referring to ‘peace’ as the fundamental
achievement of the EU, it’s apt that we look a little more closely at the claim. How
instrumental has the Union been in keeping the peace as well as stopping war for
its members? How good has it been in developing a continent at peace and
contributing to a world without war? What influence has it had in reducing and
resolving conflict? In binding key western European nations together in a mutually
beneficial free market, blurring economic if not geographical borders, the incentive
for using war as a shortcut to power and wealth has diminished to the point of
becoming unthinkable. That was the inspired idea behind the European Economic
Community, now the EU, in 1957.
The way the EU does business suggests that it’s pre-programmed to resolve major
disputes by negotiation and compromise. Resort to some kind of internal military
clash is simply unimaginable, something that has undoubtedly attracted non-
member European countries, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
Closer to home, the EU has been supporting peace initiatives in Northern Ireland
ever since 1995: over the next few years, it’s committed to providing a further
€229m to support ‘projects that contribute towards the promotion of greater levels
of peace and reconciliation’.  
The EU is institutionally programmed to favour peace and not the use of military
force. Though it can and does leave the challenges of confronting violence directly
to other organisations (NATO particularly), the EU signals a pacific intent. And
that might be its enduring virtue. The fact that many people are disappointed that it
hasn’t done more or enough for the cause of peace perhaps indicates the EU’s
potential as a vehicle of the non-violent resolution of conflicts, wherever they
occur. And if so, isn’t it better to be at the heart of such an organisation intent on
solving violent disputes peacefully and collectively?

Idealistic that may be. But is peace an ideal that we should ignore in favour of hard
economic benefit?
Glosser :

Reluctant -  feeling or showing  hesitation, or unwillingness (refusing);

having or assuming  a specified role unwillingly-refuse, neglect,

Hatred - extreme dislike or disgust,

Binding – involving

Blurring-  become less distinct, something moving or occurring too quickly to

be clearly seen – stump, shade, eclipse

Incentive - a thing that motivates or encourages one to do something, - stimulant,

drive,impulse

Diminished- reduce, decrease,minimize

Clash- a violent confrontation- bump,conflict, war,collision