The Politics of Peace: Why Maria Corina Machado’s Nobel Prize Victory Sparks Global Controversy

 

The announcement that Maria Corina Machado, the prominent Venezuelan opposition leader, had won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize on October 10th immediately drew international scrutiny. While the award ostensibly honors her commitment to peace, critics argue the selection process was deeply flawed and driven by political maneuvering, ignoring massive humanitarian crises and more deserving candidates.

Venezuela’s 'Iron Lady' and the Official Rationale

Venezuela currently faces dire conditions: millions live in poverty, basic necessities like electricity and water are hard to obtain, and the healthcare system is "on a ventilator". Thousands flee the South American nation annually. The country’s leader, a strong personality supported by China and Russia, faces widespread allegations of vote rigging, and the opposition is severely suppressed through false cases and imprisonment.

Machado, known as the "Iron Lady of Venezuela," was chosen from 338 global nominations. The Nobel Committee stated that the award recognized her efforts to promote her country's democratic rights and her peaceful fight against dictatorship. A 58-year-old engineering and finance graduate, Machado rose to prominence after being elected to the National Assembly in 2010. She aggressively criticized President Nicolas Maduro’s regime over issues including human rights violations and economic mismanagement. Although Maduro's government removed her from the National Assembly in 2014, her popularity surged, making her the primary opponent in the 2024 elections until Maduro used his "dictator toolkit" to disqualify her candidacy.

The Trump Connection and Dedication

The media spotlight following Machado's win was partially diverted by a losing candidate: Donald Trump. Trump and his team had been relentlessly pressuring the Nobel Committee to award him the prize.

Despite the committee selecting Machado, she cunningly acknowledged Trump’s support for Venezuela’s democratic struggle by dedicating her Nobel Peace Prize to him. This move allowed Trump and his supporters to claim a "moral victory".

Trump's insistence on receiving the prize stems from the belief that if his predecessor, Barack Obama, could win the award in 2009 shortly after taking office, he too is deserving. Trump claims that he resolved over seven conflicts globally during his second term—including those involving India-Pakistan and attempts at an Israel-Hamas peace agreement—but critics note this claimed work occurred after the January 31, 2025, nomination deadline. Trump's aggressive public campaign, which included lobbying allies and threatening tariffs against Norway, ultimately may have backfired, as the committee prefers to avoid open campaigning. A committee chair implied that Trump lacked the necessary "courage and integrity" sought in candidates.

Questionable Alliances and the Price of Peace

Machado’s victory is highly controversial due to questions regarding the true nature of her struggle for democracy. Critics question whether her efforts are strictly peaceful, pointing out her willingness to align with the American right wing and Israel. Following the October 7th Hamas attack, Machado fully supported Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, declaring that Venezuela’s struggle mirrored Israel's. Alarmingly, she remained silent on the subsequent "genocide in Israel" (presumably Gaza), possibly due to a pact signed between her party and Netanyahu's party in 2020. Her associations also extend to European far-right leaders.

Furthermore, in 2019, Machado publicly advocated for a foreign military intervention to effect regime change in Venezuela, an action Donald Trump has been actively pursuing. This has led many to question if the prize is genuine recognition or a "lollypop" designed to ensure that if Machado gains power, the West is granted access to Venezuela's "vast oil reserves".

A History of Political Statements

The Nobel Peace Prize, established by Alfred Nobel’s will and first awarded in 1901, was meant to honor those who promoted fraternity between nations, reduced standing armies, and advanced peace congresses. While the criteria have broadened over time to include human rights and humanitarian efforts, the award has frequently faced criticism for being a diplomatic and political statement rather than a genuine promoter of peace.

The award's credibility is damaged by its history of ignoring figures like Mahatma Gandhi, who was bypassed five times. Conversely, the committee has honored controversial figures such as American President Theodore Roosevelt, diplomat Henry Kissinger, and Yasser Arafat.

Recent contentious awards include:

• Henry Kissinger (1973): Awarded for ending the Vietnam War, despite being known to the committee for alleged war crimes during the Cold War, including the bombing of Cambodia between 1969 and 1970.
• Barack Obama (2009): Received the prize less than a year into his presidency while his administration was actively involved in bombing countries including Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen.
• Abiy Ahmed (2019): Won for resolving a long-standing conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, only to face allegations of human rights violations and war crimes in the Tigray Region a year later.

The Overlooked Winners: Courage and Integrity

Many argue the 2025 committee lacked the courage to acknowledge those truly deserving. The committee had a "golden opportunity" to send a strong message of peace.

While the world saw atrocities during World War II kept hidden, the current situation in Gaza—described as an "open genocide"—is broadcast live, surpassing even the efforts of leaders like Hitler to conceal concentration camps. In this context, where powerful nations remain silent, ordinary citizens worldwide have taken to the streets in support of Gaza. These protestors are challenging some of the world’s biggest war criminals and the military-industrial complex. They have faced severe repercussions, including job losses, arrests, and being falsely labeled as Hamas sympathizers. Nevertheless, their actions have generated critical political pressure and led to the delivery of aid.

If the protestors themselves were not considered, the award could have honored other candidates who demonstrated true courage and integrity:

• Francesca Albanese: The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Palestinian Territories, who has consistently warned the world about Israel's actions.
• The Journalists Covering the Conflict: Over 250 journalists have been killed covering the genocide, making this the deadliest era for reporters. Critics allege that Israel is deliberately targeting journalists to prevent the truth about Gaza from emerging.

By choosing Machado, a supporter of Trump and Netanyahu who may secure Western access to Venezuelan oil, the Nobel Committee chose a safe, political option. This decision, critics fear, may follow the path of the controversial Henry Kissinger award and further diminish the dignity of the Nobel Peace Prize, reinforcing the notion that "politics prevails over peace" in the modern world.