A moment for peace in Eastern Europe: the 2022 recipients of the Nobel Prize

Ales Biliatskii (Photo by: Mariusz Kubik CC-BY-4.0, via Wikipedia)

Earlier this Autumn, the official account of The Nobel Prize tweeted that three recipients had been jointly awarded the 2022 Peace Prize. The winners? A Belarussian called Ales Bialiatskii; Memorial, a human rights organisation formerly based in Russia; and the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties.

With so much content about the war in Ukraine flooding our news feeds, not only have the Belarussian protests of 2020-2021 disappeared from public discourse but coverage of the award ceremony itself has also been relatively limited. Given the lack of international media attention, one may find themselves wondering who the recipients are and what work they did to deserve the recognition of the Nobel Committee. Broadly, the were selected due to their demonstration of the “significance of civil society for peace and democracy" in the region – but what does that mean in this year’s context, and what significance lies in sharing out of the prize, especially between citizens of adversary nations?

Ales Biliatskii

Biliatskii is a pro-democracy activist who was unable to collect his award in person due to his imprisonment on tax evasion charges. Biliatskii was instrumental to the foundation of post-Soviet Belarus, and later set up the Viasna Human Rights Centre in 1996 as a response to the repression of anti-Lukashenko demonstrations. He had already been nominated five times for the Nobel Prize, was awarded the Vaclav Havel Human Rights Prize in 2013 and has earned widespread international recognition. Unfortunately, this adds to the narrative of Biliatski acting as a ‘foreign agent’ – unalleviated by the Havel committee’s description of his work as ensuring that “the citizens of Belarus may one day aspire to our European standards". The committee’s decision to recognise someone incapable of giving an acceptance speech has symbolic importance, mirroring the difficulty of vocalising opposition to the Lukashenko regime.

Memorial

The term ‘foreign agent’ comes from the 2012 laws instated in the Russian Federation, whereby groups who receive any funding from abroad and engage in political activity must label themselves under the term. Memorial, established at the fall of the Soviet Union to uncover the crimes committed under Stalin, saw many of its centres come under this definition between 2014 and 2015, before Memorial International had to take the mantle in 2016. Battles in the courts, huge fines paid by crowdfunding and a search of the Moscow offices culminated in its closure in December 2021. Chillingly and yet predictably, the state prosecutor Zhafyarov accused Memorial of "creating a false image of the Soviet Union as a terrorist state" and "making us repent for the Soviet past, instead of remembering glorious history […] probably because someone is paying for it". Now the organisation works in various chapters throughout the world, rather than as a legal, unified organisation. An unofficial Instagram account which keeps followers up to date with various events and petitions posted a short statement after Memorial’s awarding of the Nobel prize was announced, expressing the members intention to continue their work and declaring that “memory and freedom cannot be banned” (7/10/2022 @topos.memo.ru).

 The Centre for Civil Liberties

Under the leadership of Oleksandra Matviichuk, this organisation has documented 21,000 examples of war crimes committed since 2014, including in Irpin, Bucha, and the towns and villages north-west of Kyiv. Matviichuk has given several interviews to the international media, explaining the need for accountability for Russian atrocities. When asked by the Guardian if she hoped for a process similar to Nuremberg, she explained that an international tribunal had to begin now, rather than after a collapse of Putin or Lukashenko’s regime – so that it would “be independent of Putin’s power”. She has also expressed that the present Russia shows a “genocidal character” which is entirely incompatible with its membership of the UN Human Rights Council, an issue that is becoming increasingly contentious. Faced with opaque legal processes and an overwhelming number of cases, Matviichuk remains defiant, saying that she and the Centre will use the platform granted to them by the Nobel Prize “to promote justice and accountability in order to achieve a sustainable peace”.

Oleksandra Matviichuk’s twitter account provides frequent updates on her work and daily life. She also reposts powerful photographs of the destruction of Ukrainian cities as well as personal stories of loss and moments of light. Her handle is @avalaina.

Although splitting the prize has appeared controversial to some (Ukrainian presidential adviser and representative at the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, Myhkailo Podolyak, tweeted: “Interesting understanding of the word ‘peace’”, in a barely-veiled criticism of Memorial’s inclusion) the reaction has largely been positive. In their Instagram post, Memorial expressed solidarity with “Ales Biliatskii and other political prisoners in Russian and Belarus prisons, and (…) Ukrainian colleagues working in war conditions”, whilst Matviichuk expressed in her interview with the Guardian that “freedom and human rights has (sic) no limitation”.  

The crucial work done by these organisations and individuals provides a source of hope, but their ability to remain impervious to national tensions is what’s truly inspiring. In a series of paradoxes, we can celebrate their bravery and commitment to moral causes, but we cannot avoid the fact that their selflessness is necessitated by the terrible scenario which their compatriots face. Their impact is to be celebrated, but also serves as a reminder of the persecution and violence which is tearing apart their region.

Perhaps we can choose to interpret this moment as a brief pause for peace in the midst of such hopelessness.