What makes this year's Nobel Peace Prize notable is as much the propriety of not awarding as the impropriety of awarding. There is a growing opinion that the same prize committee that elevated the prestige of the Nobel by not awarding it to US President Donald Trump, who campaigned for the prize on his own behalf and through a few applauding world leaders, has nullified that merit by awarding it to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado. Although it is not the first time that awards—especially the Nobel Peace Prize—have been controversial, the doubt whether the fundamental concept of peace itself has gone wrong should not be dismissed lightly. There is no doubt that Maria Machado is a prominent democratic activist in Venezuela. However, there is a question of how outsourcing democratic activity ultimately helps peace or democracy itself. Maria has succeeded in uniting the opposition against socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro. She has had to go into hiding for some time. At the same time, she has welcomed US intervention; she has openly sought help from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The criticism that she is seeking capitalist imperialism as an alternative to socialist dictatorship is not unfounded. Maria does not seem to be convinced that suppressing opponents by force is not a democratic process, nor does she seem to be convinced that justice is a prerequisite for peace.
Her stance on the Palestinian issue, the greatest challenge to peace today, is racist and anti-peace. She is a staunch supporter of Israel and has even announced that she will move the Venezuelan embassy to Jerusalem if she is elected. Peace efforts, disarmament work, and international mobilisation are the three qualifying criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize. That is only the principle. Henry Kissinger, who won the same prize while bombing Cambodia, and Barack Obama, who won it despite expanding drone wars, all speak for the Nobel Peace Committee's vision of peace. The Peace Prize, the most politically charged of the Nobel Prizes, has generally been awarded to those who align with the Western vision. The individuals and groups that are making the most sincere efforts for peace are often ignored in this trend. That is why the prize that cannot be given to Trump was given to someone who completely agrees with him on the issue of ‘peace’. What is being devalued here are the values, including peace, and the many individuals and movements that are working with dedication for them. The goal of Alfred Nobel, who established the prize, is also being betrayed.
Even if the democratic activities carried out by Maria Machado are well-intentioned, the most important factor leading to peace is not democracy, but justice. Maria and the Nobel Committee’s approach to justice is no different. Maria’s commitment to Israel’s racist Likud party cannot be justified on the basis of democracy or justice. At a conference of European fascists she attended this year (which included racists Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen), a prominent theme was the call for a genocide similar to the Spanish genocide that took place in the 1500s. If peace work is about democracy at home and supporting all kinds of racists abroad, then Maria Machado deserves the prize. It has also been given to radical Zionists like Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. But it is also an injustice to humanitarians like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr., who deserved the prize. It is sad that a prize that should encourage peace work has been so degraded.