A starting list for the Peace Prize

Four world leaders stand out so far this year, showing how peace is possible and natural.

Reuters
South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un shake hands at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas on April 27, 2018.

These may be trying times for the Nobel committee. So many world leaders are standouts to win this year’s Peace Prize. In the midst of their particular crises, each one is trying different ways to prevent violence. Yet each can be held up as a model of peacemaking in process, worthy of a supportive award.

Perhaps the most visible example is Venezuela’s Juan Guaidó. In January, he became interim president with the support of the National Assembly and has insisted on nonviolent means in the effort to oust dictator Nicolás Maduro. Week by week, his pacifist approach has persuaded more and more members of the military to break ranks with Mr. Maduro.

“This is unprecedented in the world,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “I think the change is going to be peaceful and constitutional.”

In South Korea, President Moon Jae-in took office in 2017 and soon opened a door to a North Korea that was escalating its missile and nuclear tests. His deft diplomacy laid the groundwork for the first summit between the United States and North Korea last June. With the apparent failure of a second summit last month, he again seeks peaceful engagement. Reconciliation between the two Koreas, he says, is the “driving force” to denuclearize North Korea.

In Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed, who holds a PhD in conflict resolution, took office as prime minister last year and promptly won over foes with his trademark phrase: “Love always wins.” He has signed a peace pact with Eritrea and freed political prisoners. He has welcomed dissidents to help him reshape the country.

Dr. Abiy’s biggest challenge is reconciling 80 different ethnics groups that often fight each other or try to secede. The days of using military force to suppress dissent are over, he says. “Negative peace is possible as long as you have a strong army. We are heading to positive peace,” he told the Financial Times.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in peaceful leadership – and most critical to the world – is Imran Khan. The former cricket star became Pakistan’s prime minister last year in a country where the military traditionally controls security policy. After a Feb. 14 suicide attack arranged by a Pakistani terrorist group killed 44 Indian security forces in disputed Kashmir, India launched its first airstrike inside Pakistan since a 1971 war. The two nuclear-capable states were primed for all-out conflict.

In a goodwill gesture that suddenly changed the mood, Mr. Khan returned an Indian fighter pilot shot down inside Pakistan. He also offered talks with India and promised to seize the assets of terrorists groups operating in Pakistan. “Nobody wins in a war. Especially countries that have the sort of weapons that India and Pakistan possess should not even think of war...,” he said.

It remains unclear how much Khan will further confront a military that has often used terrorist groups for strategic purposes. He is the first prime minister not to come from the traditional political establishment. If he can bring terrorist groups to heel, it will start to heal ties with India.

Which of these leaders deserve a Nobel? Events are still moving in each country and the Peace Prize will not be known until October. For now, however, each deserves attention and support, especially for their conviction that peace is possible and natural.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.