Ian Bunn | Political & Popular Culture Arts

Ian Buruma the 61 year old Dutch Professor of Democracy, Human Rights, and Journalism having  authored numerous books, including ‘Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo Van Gogh’ and the ‘Limits of Tolerance and Taming the Gods: Religion and Democracy on Three Continents’, has published an article on the Project Syndicate titled ‘Does Europe Need Britain?’. Buruma states “Many people in the United Kingdom believe that their country can do perfectly well outside the European Union. Members of the UK Independence Party even think that Britain would do better, as do a considerable number of Conservative “Euro-skeptics.” They dream of Britain as a kind of Singapore of the West, a commercial powerhouse ruled from the City of London. That is why Prime Minister David Cameron felt obliged to offer the British people a referendum on a simple question: in or out. …In the meantime, there is another question to be considered: how many Europeans want Britain to stay in the EU? The answer depends partly on nationality. …it would be wrong simply to dismiss British doubts about the European drive toward greater unity. It is not just a nationalist reaction. Many Europeans now resent the expanding powers of EU bureaucracy. British resistance to grand European plans is the democratic grit in an enterprise that could become authoritarian, despite having the best intentions, and should serve as a necessary corrective to the utopianism of the technocrats. Those who favor European unification should take criticisms of its political flaws very seriously. Doing so is the only chance to ensure that a united Europe, whatever form it takes, will be democratic, as well as economically beneficial. That is why Europe needs Britain: not as an offshore center of banking and commerce, but as a difficult, questioning, stubbornly democratic partner.”

Inspired by Ian Buruma, Project Syndicate ow.ly/hLPmO Image source Larry D. Moore ow.ly/hLPfa

Tomas Magnusson the 62 year old Swedish co-president of the International Peace Bureau has published an article on the Inter Press Service titled ‘why isn’t the Nobel Peace Prize for the champions of peace? Magnusson states “Leaders of the European Union (EU) will gather … to receive an increasingly controversial Nobel Peace Prize. Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor and industrialist, established the five prizes by his will in 1895 and there is a growing international awareness that his prize “for the champions of peace” does not go to the recipients Nobel had in mind. …nowhere has the EU declared a political ambition to promote the global peace order of demilitarised nations that Nobel described with unmistakable clarity in his will. …Norwegian politicians are entitled to have their opinion on the EU as a contributor to “peace” and they are free to throw great parties for political friends. But they are not free to use the entrusted money and the prestige of the Nobel prizes to promote their own agendas. A will is a legally binding instrument, yet, in the last decade, the prize has become totally disconnected from Nobel’s disarmament purpose… …In the will, Nobel formulated his purpose in unmistakable terms: he wished to free the world from the scourge of militarism and wars and ensure that resources were used for the benefit of people rather than feeding the voracious appetite of arms races. Nobel gave his peace prize to the world, wishing to foster innovative changes that would “confer the greatest benefit on mankind”. …The legitimate Nobel winner should be an opponent rather than a proponent of military programmes and policies. The world spends exorbitant amounts on a busted model of security and an illusion that it can be achieved in confrontation rather than cooperation. To use the peace prize to promote the visionary peace plan of Nobel would be the best thing that could happen to the poor and unhappy of the world, to the environment, human rights, democracy, women and children, victims of war ¬ everywhere, every year.”

Inspired by IPS News ow.ly/gdN5e image source Facebook ow.ly/gdMSu

Nasrin Sotoudeh the 49 year old Iranian human rights lawyer imprisoned for six years in solitary confinement has won the European Union’s prize for human rights and freedom of thought, the Sakharov Prize. Renowned for representing imprisoned Iranian opposition activists and politicians following the disputed June 2009 Iranian presidential elections, as well as prisoners sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were minors, had been imprisoned herself on charges of spreading propaganda and conspiring to harm state security. An Aljazeera articles states “…cut off from the outside world for defying the country’s leadership. Nasrin Sotoudeh, an imprisoned human rights lawyer, and Jafar Panahi, the filmmaker, were awarded the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize for their courage in defending their own and others’ basic freedoms, the parliament said. Named in honour of Soviet scientist and dissident Andrei Sakharov, the prize has been awarded by the European Parliament annually since 1988. “The award … is a message of solidarity and recognition to a woman and a man who have not been bowed by fear and intimidation and who have decided to put the fate of their country before their own,” Martin Schulz, European Parliament president, said as he announced the winners. …”I know that you require water, food, housing, a family, parents, love, and visits with your mother,” Sotoudeh began in a letter written from prison to her children, who were prevented from seeing her after she refused to wear a chador, a full length traditional garment. “However, just as much, you need freedom, social security, the rule of law, and justice.”

Inspired by Aljazeera ow.ly/eUbzv image source Facebook ow.ly/eUbxO