Why the Nobel Peace Prize Continues to Fail the Global South

 Azhar Rashid Khan, PSP

The Nobel Peace Prize — created, ironically, by Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite — is celebrated as the world’s highest moral honour, a beacon of hope and principle. Yet its track record reveals a deeply political logic: rather than purely rewarding peace, it often amplifies neo‑liberal capitalist agendas, privileging figures aligned with Western power over genuine anti-imperial or anti-colonial resistance. This is not just a failure of choice — it is a design.

The 2025 decision to award María Corina Machado, a far-right Venezuelan opposition leader, is a case in point. Her public record reveals not only a commitment to U.S.-style free-market democracy, but also a striking alignment with Israel’s political and security project — including praise for Netanyahu and an explicit plan to move Venezuela’s embassy to Jerusalem (AA News, 2025; Middle East Monitor, 2025). Such positions raise a critical question: is the Nobel Peace Prize endorsing peace — or signalling geopolitics?

Nobel’s Imperial Contradictions: A Brief History

The controversies around the Prize are not new. Over decades, several laureates have exposed the deep hypocrisy of the Nobel Committee — particularly when it comes to Western realpolitik:

• Henry Kissinger (1973): Awarded despite his central role in covert bombings, coups, and policies that destabilized multiple countries (Shawcross, 2002; Hitchens, 2001).
• Aung San Suu Kyi (1991): Once a symbol of democratic resistance, later criticized for her government’s complicity in the genocide of Rohingya Muslims (Farzana, 2021).
• Barack Obama (2009): Honoured at the outset of his presidency — only to significantly expand drone warfare, leading to civilian casualties in multiple countries (Benjamin, 2016).
• European Union (2012): Awarded amid internal contradictions — while austerity policies and externalisation of borders increased suffering in the Global South and among migrants (Hassan & Holmes, 2014).

These are not isolated blunders. Rather, they reflect a recurring pattern: the Prize rewards those whose politics align with Western economic or strategic interests, rather than pure peace building.

The Neo‑Liberal Logic Behind “Peace”

To understand the Prize’s current alignment, we must examine the neo-liberal architecture it operates within. Neo-liberalism, especially as articulated in the Washington Consensus, prioritizes deregulation, privatization, and foreign investment — often at the cost of public welfare, social equality, or economic sovereignty (Williamson, 2004).

When translated into global governance, this ideology elevates dissidents who promise to open their countries to capital, weaken state control, and align with Western strategic interests. This is why the Nobel Peace Prize often feels more like a moral endorsement of neoliberalism than of universal justice.

In this paradigm, “peace” is not about ending violence or oppression: it is about compliance.

María Corina Machado: The Geopolitics of a “Peace” Laureate

Machado’s politics must be read through this lens. She is far from a neutral civil-rights leader:

1. Neo-liberal Economic Platform
   Machado advocates for privatisation, free markets, and deep engagement with global capital — precisely the economic policy preferences of Washington and Western financial institutions.
2. Pro-Israel Alignment
   1. After the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, Machado condemned Hamas as “terrorist” and expressed solidarity with Israel. 
   1. She publicly pledged that, if she ever governs, she will relocate Venezuela’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. 
   1. During a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, she praised his “decisive actions” in Gaza and backed Israel’s strategy, framing Iran as a shared threat. 
   1. Her party, Vente Venezuela, signed a strategic cooperation agreement with Netanyahu’s Likud party in 2020, covering “political, ideological, social, strategic, geopolitical and security” dimensions. 
   1. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) condemned her Nobel award, explicitly citing her support for Likud and her engagement with far-right elements in Europe. 
   1. Critics have also pointed out resurfaced social-media posts where she described Israel as “a genuine ally of freedom” and urged other leaders to back its war policies. 

These are not marginal or symbolic remarks — they are concrete lines of geopolitical alliance.

Malala Yousafzai: A Parallel in Selective Moral Spotlight

Machado’s case is not unique in how the Nobel committee amplifies certain Global South voices while muting others. Malala Yousafzai is a compelling parallel:

• Malala’s narrative was embraced because it fit a Western-friendly script: a female Muslim survivor whose struggle validated the “extremism vs liberal values” dichotomy.
• However, when the Gaza genocide unfolded, her global moral voice was largely silent. Unlike her earlier high-profile activism, she did not veer strongly into public condemnation — a silence many interpret as structural, not accidental.
• Her ascension to global symbolism aligns with Western media, donor networks, and institutional support — the same ecosystem that now elevates Machado.

Malala was useful in narrative-building; Machado is useful in geopolitical signalling.

Why This Matters: The Global South Must Question Western Moral Institutions

The Nobel Peace Prize is not simply an award — it is a global signal. It tells the world which struggles are legitimate, which leaders are credible, and which political visions are worthy of international moral capital.

For the Global South, it’s crucial to understand that:

• The Prize often endorses those who align with Western interests, not those who fundamentally challenge them.
• Many anti-colonial or anti-imperial voices remain invisible because they don’t serve the neo-liberal moral script.
• Relying on Western recognition can trap resistance movements in a cycle of symbolic validation rather than systemic change.

If we want a more just world — one where the rights and dignity of the oppressed are truly central — we must build our own moral and political institutions, not lean on those that selectively bestow legitimacy.

Conclusion: Hypocrisy Is Not a Mistake — It Is the System

The Nobel Peace Prize’s pattern of winners reveals a painful truth: it is not immune to the moral hierarchies of power. Its decisions consistently validate those who promise neoliberal reform and geopolitical alignment, rather than genuine structural justice.

María Corina Machado’s Nobel underscores this crisis. Her alignment with Israel’s far-right, her cooperation with Likud, her embassy relocation plan — these are not tangents. They are deeply political commitments. And when such a figure is celebrated as a “peace laureate,” we must ask: peace for whom?

In a world where Western geopolitical priorities dominate not just markets and militaries, but also morality, the Nobel Peace Prize often becomes a tool of moral theatre, not a harbinger of authentic global justice.

Global South movements should not fall into the trap of seeing this award as a neutral arbiter of worth. Instead, they must demand new frameworks — where peace is not defined by the powerful, but by the pursued liberation of the oppressed.

References

AA News. (2025, October 11). Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado voices support for Israel. Anadolu Agency.  

Al Jazeera. (2025, October 10). Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado wins Nobel Peace Prize.

CAIR. (2025, October). US Muslim rights group condemns Nobel Peace Prize award to Venezuela’s Maria Corina Machado.

Hitchens, C. (2001). The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Verso.

Farzana, K. F. (2021). Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh: History, situation, and policy. Routledge.

Hassan, O., & Holmes, C. (2014). The EU and the Mediterranean migrant crisis. European Security Journal.

Shawcross, W. (2002). Sideshow: Nixon, Kissinger, and the destruction of Cambodia. Cooper Square Press.

Williamson, J. (2004). A short history of the Washington Consensus. Institute for International Economics.

Times of India. (2025, October) Supported Israel? Why Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Corina Machado is facing backlash; old posts resurface.

Middle East Monitor. (2025, October 11). Nobel Peace Prize winner Machado voices support for Israel.

The author is former Addl.IG Police and a geo-political analyst