Nobel Peace Prize: Changes Are Inevitable
— V. R. Ajith Kumar
From the very
beginning of discussions surrounding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2025, there was
an unmistakable sense of shame in the air. The President of the United
States—leader of one of the largest and wealthiest democracies in the
world—repeatedly proclaimed himself to be the most deserving candidate for the
Nobel Peace Prize. This individual, Donald Trump, increasingly exhibits
dictatorial tendencies: he lies without hesitation, displays some of the most
distasteful traits of human behavior, and speaks and acts without restraint or
responsibility.
The world anxiously
watched to see whether a man who embodies unrest and discord would succeed in
pressuring the Nobel Committee into submission and snatch the prize. After all,
Alfred Nobel, who instituted the award, and the Nobel Foundation, which still
retained some measure of credibility, were at stake. In the end, instead of hitting
the arrow directly in the eye, the Committee merely brushed the eyebrow.
The prize was awarded to Trump’s close ally, the Venezuelan opposition leader
María Corina Machado.
However, events
following the award made it clear that striking the eyebrow was no different
from striking the eye itself. Machado announced that she dedicated the Nobel
Peace Prize to Trump and declared that he deserved it more than she did. Just
when the world was attempting to digest this absurdity, she visited Trump at
the White House, warmly greeting the “warrior” who had allegedly captured her
mortal enemies—Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia
Flores—during a military operation and imprisoned them. She then presented
Trump with the 196-gram gold Nobel medal she had received, mounted on a large
board with an ornate gold frame.
This gesture found
appreciation only among Trump and his admirers. The Nobel Committee that chose
Machado, Machado herself for surrendering the prize, and Trump for accepting it
without the slightest embarrassment have all been reduced to comical figures.
This entire episode defies common sense and shocks anyone with even a basic
understanding of peace and ethics.
The first major
controversy surrounding the Nobel Peace Prize arose in 1973, when it was
jointly awarded to Henry Kissinger, the U.S. National Security Advisor and
Secretary of State deeply involved in the Vietnam War, and Lê Đức Thọ, who led
peace negotiations for North Vietnam. Although the Paris Peace Accords were
signed in January 1973, the war continued unabated. In 1975, when Saigon fell
to North Vietnamese forces, the United States exited Vietnam in humiliation.
Recognizing the hollowness of the “peace,” Lê Đức Thọ refused the prize—the
only laureate ever to do so voluntarily. Two members of the Nobel Committee
resigned during the controversy. This episode marked the first serious black
mark on the Nobel Peace Prize.
Aung San Suu Kyi was
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her non-violent struggle for
democracy and human rights in Myanmar, a decision that received global acclaim.
However, after she came to power following years of imprisonment, she sided
with the military and defended its actions during the ethnic cleansing of the
Rohingya Muslim minority. This triggered widespread condemnation and demands to
revoke her prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee rejected these calls, stating
that the award recognized her actions up to that point, not her later conduct.
The 1994 Nobel Peace
Prize remains one of the most controversial. It was awarded to PLO Chairman
Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and Israeli Foreign
Minister Shimon Peres for their efforts toward peace through the Oslo Accords.
Arafat led an organization engaged in guerrilla warfare, while Rabin and Peres
were leaders under whom Palestinians were killed mercilessly. A Nobel Committee
member resigned in protest. The continued Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes it
painfully clear that the prize failed to deliver peace.
In 2009, the Nobel
Peace Prize was awarded to Barack Obama, the forty-fourth President of the
United States, less than nine months into his presidency. The decision stunned
the world. A Gallup poll revealed that 61 percent of Americans believed he did
not deserve the award. Even Obama himself expressed discomfort with the honor.
Just weeks before traveling to Oslo, he authorized the deployment of 30,000
additional troops to Afghanistan. His presidency also saw a massive expansion
of drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Nobel Committee chairman
Thorbjørn Jagland defended the decision by saying it aimed to influence the
future rather than reward the past. Yet, the prize failed in that objective. In
his memoir, Secretary to the Nobel Peace Prize, former committee
secretary Geir Lundestad admitted that the award, instead of strengthening
Obama, became a burden.
When the Nobel Peace
Prize was awarded to the European Union in 2012, the EU was grappling with
refugee crises, border disputes, and internal turmoil. However, criticism was
muted, perhaps because the award went to a supranational entity rather than an
individual.
Muhammad Yunus, the
2006 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, now heads the interim government of
Bangladesh. He assumed power after extremist student groups, allegedly with CIA
backing, overthrew the elected government. Since then, religious
minorities—especially Hindus—have been subjected to widespread attacks, and
cultural institutions have been destroyed. Yunus’s silence in the face of these
atrocities has shocked peace-loving people across the world. While public
opinion increasingly questions the committee’s decision to award him the prize,
the Nobel Committee maintains that it does not review post-award conduct.
Alfred Nobel, in his
1895 will, specified that the Peace Prize should be awarded to those who work
for “brotherhood between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing
armies, and the promotion of peace congresses.” A five-member committee
appointed by the Norwegian Parliament selects the laureates. The 2025 committee
is chaired by Jørgen Watne Fidnes, Secretary-General of PEN Norway, with Asle
Toje as vice-chair. The other members are politician Anne Enger, economist and
policy expert Kristin Clemet, and politician and human rights activist Guri
Melby.
Once an honor that
kept the world in suspense, the Nobel Peace Prize today resembles a rusted
relic that has lost much of its moral authority. This reality demands that both
the Nobel Committee and the global public recognize the need for greater
caution in future selections. If no deserving candidate exists among the
nominations, the prize should simply not be awarded. History shows that the
prize has been withheld in several years, including during the World Wars.
If the Nobel Peace
Prize is to retain its sanctity, mechanisms must exist to freeze or revoke it
when recipients later endorse violence or oppression. Such reforms are
essential—not only to protect the prize’s credibility, but also to remind
future laureates that the Nobel Peace Prize is not merely an honor, but a
profound moral responsibility.
