At what prize peace?

President Aquino said it himself: The snub of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize awarding ceremony was done for the sake of “national interest.” The Nobel boycott lends itself very well to personal disappointment. Liu Xiaobo languished in the prison cells of China in the name of things we Filipinos hold dear: freedom of speech, a working democracy, and political reform. Then again, the decision to back out of the Nobel ceremonies puts us in the league of some authoritarian regimes like Sudan and Iran, and countries that have opposite threads of governance as us, like Venezuela and Cuba.

Of course, what's done is done. We were, said Sen. Joker Arroyo, “engaged in a gamble;” it's just like saying we must concede and accede to those who support Liu Xiaobo's cause or not. The Nobel debacle looks like the necessary compromise. It's often said that the US is in the decline and it is in our best interest to support China. Or that the welfare of five Filipinos in jail in China for drug trafficking should be considered. Or maybe, just maybe, “we do not want to further annoy China,” as an unnamed diplomat mentioned: what with a broadband deal that went bust, and a hostage-taking incident, that forces us to make amends with our most powerful Asian neighbor.

There are many factors in attending and recognizing the Nobel – dubious and politicized as it may be at times – that are also in national interest. Save for the economic and political relations we share with the rest of the world, there's also our place as a beacon of human rights and an advocate of world peace. Wherever we stand on the issue of world peace, the world listens. The causes made in the People Power Revolution are pretty much similar to the ones being fought for by the Chinese dissidents.

All of this goes to show that the straight-and-narrow Daang Matuwid may be filled with necessary compromises (or compromises deemed necessary). The boycott should not inspire or elicit submission and subservience to the wants of China, if only to make up for all our errors and to foster good relations with them. The pressure from Beijing, and the perceived effects of that bully pulpit, were just unnecessary, forcing a decision between lives of our own and lives of those who fight for things we hold dearly in this country. Indeed we could have attended the ceremonies to affirm our support for human rights without having to offend Chinese sensibilities (like calling on Beijing to free Liu Xiaobo).

Rather, the row should force us to re-evaluate our relationship with the Chinese Government, and draw the lines of national interest where it is proper, just, and fair. Looking out for national interest does not mean bowing down to the whims of irritated and powerful nations, but to set limits to diplomacy and sovereignty. And it is also true that it should force us to re-evaluate our human rights situation: that the Philippine government should not only be an international spokesperson for peace and human rights, but it should fight for the same in its borders by freeing political prisoners, reviewing dispersal protocols, and looking for genuine peace accords among armed groups and rebel forces.

Yet all this brings us back to the power of something as symbolic as the Nobel. To some, it may seem like just another overrated ceremony that fetes and recognizes the choice of a committee, and can be boycotted with little ramifications. To others, though, the Nobel symbolizes peace, and to snub the idol is to snub the ideal. If we cannot afford to lose face in front of China by attending the Nobel awarding ceremony, we can't afford to do the same to the rest of the world for not attending it.

At what prize peace? Let's just say it's a Nobel sort.