When the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiabo, the Chinese authorities and the committee locked horns with each other.

China attacked the committee as follows:

First, the committee violated the principles of the Peace Prize and turned the prize into a political tool. Alfred Nobel’s criteria for the Peace Prize were: fraternity between nations, abolition or reduction of standing armies, and holding and promotion of peace congresses. During the Cold War, the Peace Prize was used as an instrument of transformation or “peaceful evolution” in countries with non-Western political systems. After the Cold War, it has been used a weapon for the West “to spread its values and economic models under the guise of human rights first.”

Second, Liu did not exercise the right to freedom of speech but committed a crime by inciting the subversion of the socialist system in China and was punished according to the Chinese constitution and the relevant law. No country, Western or non-Western, condones such a crime. China did not violate the U.N. Charter and any international covenants on human rights.

Third, the West, suffering from the rapid economic decline and political and social decay, fears the rapid rise of China, because China may surpass the West economically and militarily and become a new global hegemonic power. As a means to prevent this possibility, it instigates international and domestic opposition to the Chinese model of political and economic development under the guise of universal values by aiding and abetting Chinese dissidents and international human rights organizations.

Fourth, all members of the Nobel Committee are pro-NATO and U.S., and they serve the U.S. global strategy.

China warns the West that China will continue its political reforms keeping in step with its socio-economic development but at the Chinese pace. This does not mean that China will eventually adopt the Western democratic system. It will never be Westernized and will build a new political and economic system, based on its own civilization. “China will never be a sub-civilization,” the Global Times declared in its commentary.

Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, rebutted these accusations as follows:

China claims that Norway intervened in the domestic affairs of China by rewarding Liu’s crime with the Nobel Peace Prize, but international intervention in the human rights violations of a state is no longer domestic intervention. The concept of absolute sovereignty was established by the Westphalian Peace Treaty in 1648, but after World War II, states do not enjoy absolute sovereignty and cannot violate their citizens’ human rights. The Chinese constitution itself complies with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Liu simply exercised his freedom of speech. If the Nobel Committee keeps silent on human rights issues, other countries may make the same claim as China. Universal human rights are “our touchstone” to move toward the fraternity of nations. Therefore, the Nobel Peace Prize can be awarded to those who advocate human rights.

These two opposed views of the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize center around two controversial issues in international relations and law: Is humanitarian intervention a universally accepted principle of international law? Can the Nobel Peace Prize be awarded to human rights activists?

Most developed countries with the Western democratic political system hold that humanitarian intervention is not only a universal value but also a main principle of international law; therefore, international organizations, particularly the United Nations, and sometimes nations in concert can intervene in any country that violates its own citizens’ human rights. Such an act is no longer a violation of the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs. Most developing countries, particularly non-democratic states, oppose this view. They argue that humanitarian intervention is an outright violation of the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs, and therefore, international organizations, not to mention individual nations or groups of nations cannot intervene in domestic affairs. They further argue that they guarantee and protect human rights but cannot guarantee the freedom of speech to incite the subversion of the state. They maintain that there is no country that condones such a freedom.

Concerning the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize, most Western countries try to expand the concept of peace to what Johan Galtung called positive peace while most developing countries adhere to the traditional concept of peace. The former argue that domestic and international conflicts, violent or not, cannot be obliterated unless their root causes, including human rights violations, poverty, discrimination and social injustice, are eliminated, and only when these root causes are eliminated, perpetual peace can be secured. On the other hand, the latter assert that if human rights are incorporated into the concept of peace, peace is more likely to be threatened internationally as well as domestically. They ask: How can you be sure that conflicts will be mitigated and war will not occur while the foundation of peace is being built?

To find out how the Nobel Committee interprets the meaning and purpose of the peace prize, I classified the purposes of the peace prize into four categories: settlement of domestic and international conflicts, promotion of democracy and human rights, the combination of these two purposes, and others (humanitarian, sustainable development, environmental protection, etc.). Over the period of 1901-2010, the prize has been awarded to 98 persons and 23 organizations (total: 121). Out of the total of 121, 66 persons and nine organizations received the prize for their contributions to the settlement of conflicts; 13 persons and two organizations for their contributions for the promotion of democracy and human rights; four persons for their efforts for both purposes; and 18 persons and nine organizations for their contributions for other purposes. Another noteworthy phenomenon is that the ads in the first category were given throughout the entire period, whereas the ads in the second category were given after the Cold War started. Although the ads in the fourth category were given throughout the entire period, contributors for sustainable development and environmental protection received the prize only after the end of the Cold War.

What these trends show is that the Nobel Committee has been increasing attention to democracy and human rights issues since the Cold War began. This means that it is expanding the concept of peace from the concept of negative peace to that of positive peace. Its implications for international politics are that the West tries to make democracy and human rights the new norms and rules of the international political and legal order, and the developing countries refuse to support this move. China’s protest reflects the third world’s position. In the short and medium terms, this struggle between the West and the rest will create turbulences. However, whether the West will win in this ideological conflict in the long run depends on whether “the peoples of the United Nations” will be able to make states live up to the spirit and purpose of the United Nations.

By Park Sang-seek

Park Sang-seek is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. Ed.


코리아 헤럴드
(2010.11.04)