The Nobel Prize for War: How the Peace Committee Embraced a Coup-Plotter
In what can only be described as a profound and devastating betrayal of its own mandate, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has awarded its coveted Peace Prize to María Corina Machado. With this single decision, the committee has not merely made a mistake; it has actively enlisted itself as a weapon in a foreign regime-change operation, spitting on the grave of Alfred Nobel and the very concept of peace it was established to uphold.
The world isn’t just watching another controversial award. It is witnessing the final, full transformation of the Nobel Peace Prize from a symbol of hope into a blunt instrument of hybrid warfare. By anointing Machado—a far-right Venezuelan politician who has long been a darling of Washington’s hawkish corridors and a fervent supporter of what the International Court of Justice has deemed a plausible genocide in Gaza—the committee has declared that “peace” is now a conditional term, applicable only to those who align with the geopolitical interests of the West.
A Coup-Plotter by Any Other Name
Let us be unequivocal about who the committee has chosen to celebrate. María Corina Machado is not simply a “pro-democracy activist” as she is often sanitized in mainstream media briefs. She is a central figure in two decades of efforts to overthrow the Venezuelan government. She was a key signatory of the 2002 “Carmona Decree” that briefly dissolved Venezuela’s democratic institutions during a US-backed coup against the late Hugo Chávez. She has openly and repeatedly called for a US military invasion of her own country, a stance that constitutes, by any rational definition, a call to war.
What kind of “peace” prize is awarded to someone who advocates for foreign military intervention? The answer, of course, is that it isn’t a peace prize at all. It is a prize for loyalty. It is a reward for a decade of reliable service to the project of undermining a government that sits atop the world’s largest oil reserves and has defiantly resisted assimilation into the US sphere of influence. The funding Machado has received from US government-backed agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID was not charity; it was an investment. The Nobel Prize is now the return on that investment, providing her with a global platform and a veneer of moral legitimacy that her record utterly disproves.
The Stench of Hypocrisy and the Shadow of Gaza
The timing and context of this award amplify its grotesque nature. As Israel, with the full financial and diplomatic backing of the United States, carries out a devastating military campaign in Gaza—one that has been labelled a genocide by leading international law experts and the UN’s Special Rapporteur—the Nobel Committee selects a winner who is a fervent and vocal supporter of that very campaign.
This is not a minor footnote. It is the core of the scandal. Machado has used her platform to unequivocally support Israel’s actions, framing it as a necessary war. The Nobel Committee, by placing its laurel upon her head, is implicitly endorsing this view. They are telling the Global South, yet again, that the lives of Palestinian children are not worthy of the same moral consideration, and that “peace” is a commodity reserved for conflicts that do not inconvenience Western power.
The hypocrisy is so blinding it threatens to erase the prize’s history entirely. This is an institution that once honoured Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.—men who fought against oppressive structures. It now honours a woman who aligns with them. It has chosen a figure who stands for siege, invasion, and collective punishment, and called it peace. The committee did not just fail to do its homework; it looked directly at the facts and chose to champion a narrative of empire.
The Ugly Truth Exposed
Journalist Ben Norton was correct: this award exposes an ugly truth. The truth is that our most revered international institutions are not neutral arbiters. They are contested spaces, and often, they are captured spaces. The Nobel Peace Prize, in particular, has a long and sordid history of being wielded as a political tool. From awarding Henry Kissinger, architect of the Cambodian bombing campaign, to Barack Obama, who was overseeing two wars at the time of his award, the committee has often served as a PR firm for the powerful.
The award to Machado is the most brazen example yet. It comes amid a renewed, bipartisan US offensive against Venezuela, and it places the Nobel stamp of approval on Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions and threats. These sanctions, it must be emphasized, are not targeted at officials; they are a collective punishment against the Venezuelan people, designed to cripple the economy and create conditions for unrest. By rewarding one of the chief advocates of this brutal policy, the Nobel Committee has made itself complicit in the suffering of millions.
A Prize for the Powerful, Not the Peacemakers
Alfred Nobel’s will stated the prize should go to whoever “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.” Who, in this scenario, is working for fraternity? Is it the woman calling for a US invasion? Who is reducing standing armies? Is it the woman cheering on one of the most powerful militaries in the world as it lays waste to a besieged population?
The true peacemakers in Venezuela are the millions of ordinary people and community organizers working for dialogue and a peaceful, sovereign solution to the country’s political crisis, free from foreign intervention. The true peacemakers in the Middle East are the brave Israeli and Palestinian activists risking their lives to demand a ceasefire and a just political solution. They will not be receiving a Nobel Prize. Their work is inconvenient. It challenges the powerful.
Instead, the prize has been handed to a symbol of division, war, and subversion. The Nobel Committee has not only embarrassed itself; it has committed an act of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. It has told the world that peace is no longer the goal—victory is. And in doing so, it has rendered its own prize irrelevant, transforming what was once a beacon of hope into a cheap medal for mercenaries.
