The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize is a difficult task. It is often contentious because before there can be peace, there must be violent conflict. Often it means perpetrators of violent conflict who subsequently negotiate peace are seen as the peace-makers and become award recipients. Further, violent conflict often occurs as part of a broader political struggle. The settlement of political struggles invariably involve compromises, ulterior motives and are often fraught with uncertainty of long-term outcomes. The half-dozen prizes over the Middle East illustrate the point.
That the peace prize is difficult to select is evidenced by the fact that in 14 years since its inception in 1901, the prize was not awarded. Further, on many occasions it was awarded to organisations rather than individuals.
This year’s award to Bishop Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta for their work towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor has been contentious, not least in Indonesia which invaded (or was invited in to) the province in 1975 and annexed (or absorbed) it in 1976.
Whatever version one prefers it is clear there has been resistance to the province becoming part of Indonesia after the sudden departure of the Portuguese with no formal transition arrangements after 400 years of ruling the province. It is also clear there have been major human-rights breaches by the Indonesians, notably excessive use of force, including killings. Perhaps as many as 100,000 East Timorese have died as a result of war, famine and neglect since 1975, though more recently Indonesia has improved it record at least on food and infrastructure. However, it remains stubborn on the issue of political autonomy. Part of the reason is that as an archipelago of many languages and ethnic groups and several religions, authorities fear that autonomy in one part of the archipelago will fuel dissent elsewhere. Another reason is the stubbornness of President Suharto.
In this environment, there was work to be done for peace, not least by President Suharto himself, but he has not pursued it. There was also room for armed conflict and political advancement.
Bishop Belo and Mr Ramos-Horta have worked long and tirelessly for a settlement. Both have constantly spoken of the need for dialogue and a peaceful settlement. But the new men have a different approach. Bishop Belo wants peace first and would probably settle for some sort of local autonomy within the context of East Timor being part of Indonesia. Mr Ramos-Horta wants total independence and, apparently nothing less. The trouble with this approach is that it could well prolong the fighting, in which thousands, including 5000 Indonesian soldiers, have died.
From his base in Sydney, Mr Ramos-Horta has travelled the world forums trying to keep East Timor on the world political agenda. He has met mixed success. No doubt the award of the prize will improve his profile and lead to greater world exposure of the issue.
This indeed was the stated aim of the Nobel Peace Prize committee. But there is danger in this approach. There is no guarantee that attempting to influence progress to peace before the event, rather than recognising those who have succeeded in moving towards peace after the event, will be successful. Indeed, it might be counter-productive, especially as a large sum of money comes with the prize.
In the long run, there can only be peace in East Timor if Indonesia recognises its special status and there is some special autonomous status, even if within the Indonesian polity. But that would take an historic change of position, charity, trust and compromise … the sort of thing for which people should get the Nobel prize.