The Nobel Peace Prize and Asia’s Overlooked Activists (Asia Chronicle)

The Nobel Peace Prize and Asia’s Overlooked Activists (Asia Chronicle) 

President Barack Obama’s selection as the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was a huge surprise. Opponents from the left and right quickly condemned and mocked the selection. Even strong supporters of Obama and his foreign policy questioned the committee’s decision to give Obama one of the world’s most prestigious honors so early in his presidency, before his approach has produced concrete achievements. The reactions varied, but the surprise was nearly universal.

However, the motivation for giving Obama the award is clear: to affirm his approach to international relations and encourage a continuation of his efforts to build a more just, peaceful world through cooperation, dialogue, and engagement. This is precisely the behavior that the prize is meant to honor and no country is more central to promoting this approach to international relations than the United States.

While Obama has a mixed record on promoting peace through peaceful means (see Afghanistan) and the award has come very early, his young presidency has transformed the international climate and perceptions of the United States. Given the criteria for winning the award and the past use of the award to encourage and spur action rather than to merely honor successful achievement, Obama should be considered a worthy recipient.

There were, however, a number of other worthy (in my mind, worthier) candidates, and they deserve their time in the spotlight. Many critics of Obama’s selection, though not all, were slow to come up with alternative candidates. Shame on them. Asia alone produced a number of excellent candidates.

While Alfred Nobel was most concerned about preventing and ending international conflict, some of the prize’s most important laureates transformed the world by bringing justice to their particular nations. Others have not yet achieved their objectives, but continue to fight for human rights in their respective countries. Aung San Suu Kyi, Martin Luther King Jr., Lech Walesa, and Shirin Ebadi are laureates of the highest caliber.

My personal preference is for candidates such as these, whose courage and heroism may not lead to the avoidance or cessation of particular military conflicts, but whose actions can lead to authentic peace, peace with justice. Only justice can guarantee long-term peace and help to build a world where collective security is not merely a dream, but a concrete reality.

There are a myriad of individuals throughout Asia sacrificing, struggling, and suffering for humanity’s highest ideals. I focus on heroic individuals from three countries: Iran, Vietnam, and China.

The selection of Neda, the young Iranian protestor who was shot through the heart by the Iranian regime’s thugs, would have honored her personal sacrifice and all those who joined her in protesting Iran’s dubious presidential election results. It also would have sent a powerful message that the global community stands in solidarity with those Iranians who oppose the current violent, hateful, repressive Iranian regime and are working to transform Iran’s system of government and approach to international relations.

Neda may not have been the leader of this movement, but she became the symbol that defined the government’s cowardice and the opposition’s courage. By honoring her, the committee could have honored all those who have sacrificed and all those who will sacrifice for the end of tyranny in Iran.

Since Vietnam opened up its economy, it has experienced strong economic growth and improved its relationship with the West. Increased economic liberty and prosperity, however, have not been matched by a commitment to protect the Vietnamese people’s fundamental rights. The freedom of speech and religion are assaulted, dissent is not tolerated, and democracy is absent.

Vietnam has a number of brave dissidents who oppose these policies. Two that stand out are Thich Quang Do and Father Nguyen Van Ly, two religious figures dedicated to the expansion of freedom and protection of human rights in Vietnam. Either would have been a great choice for the prize.

If I had a vote, I likely would have voted for one of the many courageous and inspiring human rights and democracy activists from China. China’s growing power, along with its economic importance and potential, has led far too many key figures in the international community to ignore the human rights violations occurring every day in China. This is not to say that Western governments should take a belligerent stance against China, but simply that all people who value freedom and democracy should vocalize their support for those who struggle for their rights.

Liu Xiaobo, Chen Guangcheng, and Gao Zhisheng are each courageous, dedicated figures who have suffered at the hands of the Chinese government for the rights of others. Against the overwhelming power of the state, each has fought for the weak and voiceless. Each would have been a worthy recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Another exemplary candidate from China was Hu Jia. Hu has condemned the Chinese government’s use of torture, its seizure and destruction of property, use of labor camps, censorship and persecution of journalists and other writers, persecution of religious minorities, and extensive use of the death penalty.

He has promoted democracy, human rights, and human dignity. Hu has also shown a great sensitivity to the plight of people suffering from AIDS, one of the gravest threats to human security in the world. While Obama should not be considered an illegitimate or disgraceful selection, if forced to select one candidate, my vote would have gone to Hu Jia.