2010 Nobel Peace Prize: Pursuing the Hard Peace This Time

As the year 2010 is about to end, let us take a look at the controversial Nobel Peace Prize which again hugged headlines.

For 2010, the Norway-based Nobel Committee decided to award the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobao, a Chinese literary writer, professor, and human rights activist.

The west applauded the decision. And human rights groups and activists commended the awarding to one of their fellows. However, Chinese government opposed the awarding to one of its jailed dissidents. Several governments including Cuba and Venezuela joined China in criticizing the popularization of a "western" idea of peace. Later, at least sixteen countries boycotted the awarding ceremony.

Why was there strong opposition to Liu Xiaobao receiving the Peace Prize?

Normally, the government of the country of origin of the winner would share in the pride and honor of bringing the Nobel Peace Prize home. How could China celebrate with the award when it would be given to its convicted dissident? How could China and other countries that are ruled by deviants to the "western" standards of governance applaud to the awarding?

When Mother Teresa won the same award in 1979, was there a public opposition? None.

When the award went to Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1964, the world embraced the awarding to MLK because he had fought ideas and beliefs in hierarchy system. He did not directly challenge the government.

There is parallelism though of this year's award to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991 and Nelson Mandela in 1993. Both Suu Kyi and Mandela challenged their governments, and as a consequence of their actions, they were detained for several years. But Myanmar (Burma) was no China at that time. South Africa elected Mandela as the first ever black President of the country.

In Liu Xiaobao's case, he has challenged his government to implement political reforms. And now, he is serving an 11-year imprisonment for inciting to subvert Chinese government.

China is recognized as a global power with economic, military, and cultural strength. Almost every country wants a piece of China, be it in trade, finance, military, cultural exchange, scholarship, religion, environment, etc.. In other words, China could afford to stand up with its leverage.

Notably, the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize decided to pursue a hard peace. It is a peace that deals with political institutions which are represented by a government. This year's award legitimizes the works and advocacies of Liu Xiaobao and other jailed political dissidents in other countries.

This made 2010 Nobel Peace Prize controversial because governments would definitely defend their political institutions. In contrast to soft peace epitomized by Mother Teresa dealing with humanitarian and social issues, hard peace, as the name suggests, is expected meet strong opposition from those who benefit from the political institutions that perpetuate structural violence to the peoples.

Oh My, What Happened To The Philippines?

Today is Human Rights Day.

It could have been splendid for human rights advocacy if governments' representatives had intended to attend the awarding of Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese human rights activist who is jailed because of his advocacy. Then, it would have been clear that globally human rights, as a collective set, is at the heart of governance.

It could have been.. But China was reported to have waged an intense campaign and pressure to boycott the awarding. Earlier, eighteen (18) countries have succumbed to that pressure. Now, at least only sixteen (16) countries because Serbia and Ukraine made a turnaround and announced that it would send a representative to the ceremony in Oslo. Among the sixteen countries, the Philippines is one of them.

How could one view the non-attendance of the Philippines in the awarding ceremony of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to a jailed Chinese dissident?

One way to view it is to look at the explanation of the invited party. The Philippine government justified its conspicuous absence by saying that the non-attendance is not a boycott but a conflict of schedule of the Ambassador to Norway. Anyone buying this justification? Come on, even a 5-year old kid could provide a better reason than that.

Another way to look at it is the rise of China in the global arena. With so much cash reserves, China has leverage to influence decision-making of any governments in need of necessary investments. The Philippines is a host to huge Chinese investments, making China its third largest trading partner. And it can only get bigger and bigger.

And another way to view it is to take account of the recent hostage-taking incident in Manila which killed eight Chinese tourists. The non-attendance of the Philippines could be its way of atonement and seeking reconciliation to the aggrieved and angry Chinese peoples and government.

Alongside with the Philippines, a number of countries would not be around during the awarding. I am not going to dwell on the list of countries that are alleged to have succumbed to the Chinese pressure and supported the Chinese protest against the Nobel. Although many point to the similarities of those that will boycott the awarding, I would not magnify the obvious defining characteristics of these countries - the way they treat and uphold human rights in their own jurisdictions.

Each country has its own reason for its non-attendance. I would leave the evaluation of their reasons to the reasoning public and readers.