| I |
s peace Western? Is it ceremonial? Is it achieved on stage for photo ops? Is peace democratic? Does it depend on the part of the world one is analysing peace from?
When it comes to the Western model of peace, the crown jewel lies in the Nobel Peace Prize, named after Alfred Bernhard Nobel, a Swedish chemist, engineer and industrialist who invented dynamite and other powerful explosives, as per Britannica.
First awarded in 1901, the prize was meant for a “who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations; for the abolition or reduction of standing armies; and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses,‘’ writes Ronald R Krebs in The False Promise of the Nobel Peace Prize, an article published in the Political Science Quarterly.
Was Alfred Nobel’s will respected? From 1901 to 1914, almost all the prizes went to “individuals who had made major contributions to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, popular peace organisations or the international legal tradition… Between 1901 and 1945, over three-quarters of the prizes (33 of 43) went to those who promoted interstate peace and disarmament: pacifists; international lawyers, who saw law as the path to peace; leaders who played crucial roles in the League of Nations,” writes Krebs.
However, since World War II, “the Peace Prize Committee has implicitly adopted a definition of peace far removed from its original mandate.”
Alfred Nobel “wanted the Prize to have political effect” according to Francis Sejersted, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, from 1991-1999. “The Prize, in other words, is not only for past achievement, although that is the most important criterion…. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the prize to have political effect. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act – which is also the reason why the choices so often stir up controversy… In some cases the prize has, in fact, provoked conflict in the short term.”
Coming to the present day, when the Peace Prize was awarded to the Venezuelan Iron Lady, María Corina Machado, Venezuela’s main opposition leader, Steven Cheung, the communications director at the White House, wrote on social media, “The Nobel Committee proved that they place politics over peace.”
While the US president insisted that he deserved the Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars in eight months, the Norwegian Nobel Committee thought otherwise. For them, Machado received the prize “for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.”
Machado has strong supporters in the US government. Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, according to news reports, sent a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee in August last year endorsing her nomination for the Peace Prize while serving as a Florida senator. He wasn’t alone in doing so. Seven other Republican lawmakers endorsed the nomination.
As secretary of state, Rubio penned a tribute for the Venezuelan Iron Lady for Time Magazine in April this year, referring to her with her nickname. He wrote: “María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan Iron Lady, is the personification of resilience, tenacity and patriotism. Undeterred by formidable challenges, María Corina has never backed down from her mission of fighting for a free, fair and democratic Venezuela. Machado’s guiding principle has remained the same since I first met her over a decade ago... Her principled leadership is a beacon of hope, making our region and our world a better place.”
The 58-year-old Machado has been in hiding since last year, as she fights for ‘democracy’ at home. Nicolas Maduro, whose claim to Venezuela’s presidency remains disputed internationally following last year’s contested elections, landed the presidency for a third term despite evidence of his administration having rigged the vote.
Machado, who was barred from contesting by Maduro’s government, threw her support behind opposition candidate Edmundo González. While Machado remains in hiding, González has sought refuge in Spain.
While the Peace Prize often reflects global politics, serving as a tool of Western liberal soft power with a selective version of peace, one wonders if the concept of peace has been Westernised. Does peace hold morality into account?
If one looks at the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Machado, her win has courted controversy. Those who criticise the decision speak about her support for Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. How can backing a genocide and supporting a state that leads genocide be defended? Machado says that if she is elected president of Venezuela, she will relocate her country’s embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Michelle Ellner, a Latin America campaign coordinator of CODEPINK, and Venezuelan-American, wrote a blog post titled, When Maria Corina Machado Wins the Nobel Peace Prize, ‘Peace’ Has Lost Its Meaning for CODEPINK, a women-led grassroots organisation working to end US wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives. “She’s the smiling face of Washington’s regime-change machine, the polished spokesperson for sanctions, privatisation and foreign intervention dressed up as democracy.” Ellner said Machado, “worked hand in hand with Washington to justify regime change, using her platform to demand foreign military intervention to “liberate” Venezuela through force.”
Machado also led La Salida, or The Exit of President Maduro, in 2014. La Salida, an opposition campaign, wasn’t peaceful. At the time of the protests in February 2014, George Ciccariello-Maher wrote for The Nation that “the protests are a reflection of the weakness of the Venezuelan opposition, not its strength. Reeling from a serious electoral defeat in December’s local elections, old tensions have re-emerged, splintering the fleeting unity behind the presidential candidacy of Henrique Capriles Radonski, who was defeated by Maduro last April. Amid the manoeuvring so common to this opposition, more hard-line voices, impatient with the electoral game, have outflanked Capriles to the right: Ledezma, as well as María Corina Machado and Leopoldo López.”
Writing about one of the political architects of La Salida, Machado, Ciccariello-Maher wrote that Machado was “the most notorious for having signed the ‘Carmona decree’ endorsing the April 2002 coup against Chávez, and for her friendly 2005 sit-down with George W Bush.”
Is she then an advocate of peace or democracy?
For Ellner, the Venezuelan-American, “Machado isn’t a symbol of peace or progress. She is part of a global alliance between fascism, Zionism and neoliberalism, an axis that justifies domination in the language of democracy and peace. In Venezuela, that alliance has meant coups, sanctions and privatisation. In Gaza, it means genocide and the erasure of a people. The ideology is the same: a belief that some lives are disposable; that sovereignty is negotiable; and that violence can be sold as order.”
For those who wish for peace, look for it in photo ops and folders where peace lives in ink. Real peace can be read about in books to be fantasised.
Krebs, the author of The False Promise of the Nobel Peace Prize, an article published in the Political Science Quarterly, writes aptly about the Peace Prize: “Naturally, the Prize has not directly brought about international peace; even the Prize’s advocates do not make so extravagant a claim.”
The writer, acommunicationsprofessional at IBA Karachi, holds a master’s degree in international relations. Her writingfocuses on globalaffairs, climate change and culture.She can be reached on X: mariaamkahn