A Well-Deserved Prize

Since it was first awarded 88 years ago, the Nobel Peace Prize has sometimes gone to honor measurable contributions to achieving or preserving peace, while at other times its purpose has been to emphasize a political or moral point. This year’s award to the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, most reflects the latter aim. The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet 30 years ago after a failed popular revolt against China’s occupying army, was cited for advocating “peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people.” Whether this commitment to nonviolence would have won such generous recognition now had it not been for last June’s bloody events in Beijing’s Tian An Men Square is a fair question.

Certainly the Chinese government sees the award as implicit criticism of its behavior, as do some Tibetans close to the Dalai Lama. In that regard this year’s award follows a creditable precedent. It does not detract from the considerable accomplishments of such recent Peace Prize winners as Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, Lech Walesa of Poland, or Andrei Sakharov of the Soviet Union to note that the activities for which they were honored had more to do with their courageous resistance to oppression than with any concrete advancement of the cause of peace.

The award to the Dalai Lama should, at a minimum, refocus international attention on the plight of Tibet, which enjoyed less than 40 years of independence before it was invaded and occupied by China in 1950, and which has been under martial law since anti-Chinese demonstrations there earlier this year. China says that what happens in Tibet is its internal affair and not the rest of the world’s business. The Nobel Peace Prize committee is saying, in effect--and not for the first time--that when human rights are abused and freedom is denied the world has a moral responsibility to pay attention. The Peace Prize is an acceptable vehicle for furthering that aim.