The Nobel Peace Prize should mean something. Especially now, when democratic norms are eroding and authoritarianism is gaining ground. It should stand as a clear and principled signal. This year, it didn’t.
The Prize went to María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader who was barred from running in the 2024 election and instead backed Edmundo González Urrutia. The committee framed the award as support for her contributions to a peaceful, democratic transition. On paper, that sounds fine. In practice, it shows how far the committee has drifted from rewarding peace work to making political statements.
Rewarding aspiration can make sense. The Prize has, at times, nudged dialogue forward and pushed for nonviolence. But aspiration only works when the aspiration itself is toward peace. This year, the committee rewarded a political vision that fits neatly within Western preferences. When the rationale leans more on democracy promotion than conflict reduction, the Prize stops being about peace and becomes a diplomatic endorsement.
A Pattern the Committee Pretends Not to See
This is not new.
- The Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ award collapsed almost instantly.
- The optimism behind giving the Prize to Arafat, Rabin, and Peres never produced stability.
- Obama openly admitted he had no idea why he received it so early.
These awards were political signals, not acknowledgments of achieved peace. What frustrates me is how consistently the committee repeats this pattern, as if expecting a different outcome.
Norwegian institutional culture plays a role here. Growing up in that system, I’ve seen how strong the belief is that Norway has a special touch when it comes to peace diplomacy. It is a quiet confidence that its approach is inherently balanced and moral. That mindset seeps into the Peace Prize. It shapes decisions that appear principled but often track closely with Western geopolitical interests.
One could argue that this year’s decision was a politically convenient solution to a major political problem. In the face of relentless open lobbying by the current US administration for the Peace Prize and the certainty of a diplomatic crisis had they awarded the prize to Donald Trump, the selection of Machado offered a sophisticated political exit. Whether or not this was a deliberate tactic, the Committee avoided rewarding Trump while still satisfying the prevailing Western geopolitical narrative. By choosing the champion of a cause the White House already vocally supports, the selection became the one award the current US administration could not effectively contest.
Over time, the committee has stretched the word “peace” so far that almost any political struggle can be framed as peace work. This flexibility might look generous, but it has consequences. It leads to awarding people who stand in the middle of unresolved conflicts, projecting hopes that may never materialize.
When Hope Collapses
Aung San Suu Kyi is the clearest case. She was celebrated as a symbol of peaceful resistance long before anyone knew how she would govern. The world projected its hopes onto her, and the committee encouraged it. The result was a laureate whose later actions undermined everything the Prize supposedly stood for. This is the consequence of rewarding potential instead of achievement.
The issue this year is similar. Venezuela desperately needs a peaceful transition. But the committee chose someone inside a live political confrontation, not someone reducing conflict or building peace on the ground. When the laureate is selected at the very moment their political stance is contested, the Prize becomes a political endorsement, not a recognition of peacebuilding.
What Nobel Actually Wrote
Alfred Nobel’s will was specific. The Prize should go to whoever has done the most to foster “fraternity between nations,” to reduce or abolish standing armies, or to promote peace congresses.
That language is not vague. None of it includes supporting democratic transitions or advancing human rights within a single country. The committee has been stretching Nobel’s words for decades, while largely ignoring what he emphasized. When was the last time the Prize went to someone who reduced standing armies?
One can argue that the Prize should evolve. But evolution should expand the definition of peace work, not replace it with something distinct from what Nobel actually described. If the committee wants to focus on democracy and human rights, fine. If so, the standard needs to be universal rather than limited to causes that match Western strategic preferences.
The Post–Cold War Drift
It is striking how concentrated the controversial political awards are. Other than the Kissinger and Lê Đức Thọ decision in 1973, almost every “aspirational” or premature Prize has come after the Cold War. As the geopolitical landscape shifted, the committee appears to have shifted with it. It moved away from Nobel’s focus on disarmament and toward rewarding narratives that fit the post-1991 order. The results speak for themselves: a growing line of awards that age badly.
What a Peace Prize Should Look Like
There are laureates who show what the Prize can still be when the committee follows its original purpose. Médecins Sans Frontières is one example. Their work is direct and unambiguous: they operate in conflict zones, treat anyone who needs help, and speak out when civilians are harmed. The Red Cross, the UN Refugee Agency, and the campaign against landmines fit the same pattern. Their work reduces suffering in the middle of war. No ambiguity. No diplomatic signalling. Just peace, in the most literal sense.
When the committee fails to draw a clear line between peace work and political messaging, it loses the credibility that gives the Prize value. The world does not need symbolic alignment with dominant powers. It needs clarity about what peace means, and who is genuinely working toward it.
AI Transparency Statement for “The Nobel Prize: Political, Not Peaceful”: The author defined all core concepts, direction, and parameters for this work. In the writing of this article “The Nobel Prize: Political, Not Peaceful,” AI assisted in drafting text, editing and refinement, and conducting research. The AI tools used include ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini. All AI-generated content was thoroughly reviewed and verified for accuracy and appropriateness. The final work reflects primarily human judgment and expertise.
