A recurring pattern has emerged in the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize with prominent laureates going on to violate the very tenets of peace, justice, and security they were otherwise lauded for committing to—a far cry from Alfred Nobel’s desire that they represent those having brought the “…greatest benefit to humankind”.

AN EMERGING PATTERN IN RECENT YEARS

In 2019, the Prize winner was Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, whose progressive, democratic policies and popular support within ethnically diverse Ethiopia aided him in triggering sweeping reforms that aimed to transform the political landscape towards more humane, just, and equitable ideals. After years of bitter conflict with neighbouring Eritrea, Ahmed brokered the Nobel Peace Prize-winning peace deal between the two countries with Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki. At the same time, the Ahmed administration was accused of sowing discord and deliberately alienatingthe powerful Tigrayan Peoples’ Liberation Front (TPLF), a major rival political party with extensive military and erstwhile political power that formed the bulk of the forces ensuring Ethiopia’s victory against Eritrea. This culminated in a bloody civil war threatening to split asunder the fragile Horn of Africa as the conflict escalated and spilt over into neighbouring Sudan and Somalia, triggering a massive humanitarian crisis and creating fear and insecurity across Ethiopia’s multiple ethnic groups, which suspect they might be targeted next. 

Another prominent example includes Aung San Suu Kyi, State Counsellor of Myanmar, whose decade-long struggle for democracy and human rights was undertaken by non-violent means and who represented nearly 15 years of resilience, civil courage, and fortitude against the military junta of 1989 to 2010. As leader of the National League for Democracy, she was responsible for the transition of Myanmar’s political structure from a military dictatorship to a partial democracy. As of 2019, she stands accused before the International Court of Justice of engineering one of the largest and worst ethnically- and religiously-motivated genocides against the Muslim Rohingya population of Rakhine state. She has even been suspected of fomenting conflict and intolerance by refusing to condemn the rash of discriminatory attitudes pervading Myanmar’s society. Scholars have held that she was “…honoured after she had given a few rousing speeches in favour of democracy, but long before she was tested with power”. Much like Ahmed, she was awarded for the “promise of peace” but long before any opportunity arose to translate such ideals and rhetoric into practice. 

Former US President Barack Obama is another unfortunate example. He was awarded in 2009—a mere nine months into his presidency—causing significant debate across political and civilian fields. The Republican opposition attributed his victory to “star power and oratorical skills” over any actual, measurable achievements, and even his Democratic base expressed doubts over whether such an awarding had been wise. The Obama administration would go on to fail a number of important commitments, such as the promised shutdown of Guantanamo Bay and the legacy of torture, rendition flights, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of suspects of the “war on terror”. He stands responsible for ten times more air strikes than his predecessor as well as the use of far more sophisticated military technology and in far more extensive a geographical reach than the preceding Bush administration—despite being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for efforts to “bring peace to the Middle East”. While his administration defended such actions as targeting specific groups and individuals suspected of being linked to Al-Qaeda, the extensive civilian casualties were exponentially higher in Obama’s first year of presidency than in Bush’s entire eight-year term. It has even been argued that the Nobel Committee’s decision to award Obama was more so to reflect their rejection of the preceding Bush administration.

Even institutions supposedly built on liberal values of pluralistic democracy, rule of law, and human rights are not exempt. The European Union (EU) was the 2012 winner—triggering mass controversy—for their 60-year commitment to “the advancement of peace, reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”. Conveniently, it is very clearly stipulated that this applies only “in Europe,” as the actions of individual EU member states (such as France and Italy) in extraterritorial military commitments in Iraq, Libya, Mali, and Syria demonstrate quite the opposite. 

Economic crisis and discord among EU member states threaten to undermine the social rights achieved in years of political stability, characterised by rising populist movements and authoritarian figures elected in Poland, Hungary, and, formerly, the UK. The refugee crisis of 2015 demonstrated a highly uncoordinated and disorganised response on part of EU member states and revealed a once-insidious but now openly vicious, discriminatory underbelly of attitudesagainst the so-called "Islamic invasion". Hundreds of thousands of refugees languished in inhuman and degrading conditions within camps and were lambasted by the racist rhetoric of European leaders. Various EU member states even stand accused of violating international law for sending back certain individuals to the original state they were fleeing from. The present COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the deeply fractured sense of balance, solidarity, and cooperation among EU member states—characterised by bitter conflicts over allocation of budgetary resources, furthering the North-South divide, and highlighting the EU as an ineffective mechanism for effectively handling the crisis. A steady inflow of aid, resources, and support from non-EU sources—such as Norway, Russia, and China—has embittered highly-affected regions against the EU as a whole. The withdrawal of the UK from the EU bodes poorly for future economic and political outcomes of other potential “breakaway” regions in favour of xenophobic nationalist ideals instead.

RECENT NOMINEES: BENJAMIN NETANYAHU AND PRINCE MOHAMMED BIN ZAYED 

A number of controversial nominees have been put forth for 2020—including Donald Trump by right-wing Norwegian politician Christian Tybring-Gjedde for Trump’s role in brokering the Israel-UAE agreement. This agreement itself has triggered widespread outrage, given the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, have also been nominated.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel have never been at war, but the former has never officially recognised the latter and neither have any official diplomatic contacts. However in September 2020, the two established formal relations, mediated by the presence of then-President Trump. The Arab states have traditionally stood in solidarity against Israel, in support of the Palestinian cause against Netanyahu’s brutal regime of repression, forced annexation of extensive Palestinian territories, indiscriminate attacks against civilians, and decades of systemic violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The UAE for its part has been involved in the 2015 Saudi-led coalition intervening in the Yemen war against the Houthi rebels and stands accused of numerous human rights violations. 

Mohammed bin Zayed is considered the de facto ruler within the region, wielding formidable political influence over Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, and has initiated an unprecedented level of cooperation with the Israeli administration over the recent years, underlain with the desire to suppress neighbouring rival Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The agreement itself is conveniently vague, mentioning diplomatic relations, bilateral deals meant to secure regional peace and security, and enhancing economic cooperation through tourism and allowing Muslim pilgrims to enter places of worship within Jerusalem. Emirati authorities have even stopped issuing new visas to citizens of a number of Muslim countries in order to improve relations with Israel. It has been criticized as "an agreement to have an agreement" over any substantive commitment to any such ideals. The UAE had also reportedly been seeking military-advanced F-35 fighter jets, which Netanyahu has reportedly opposed and the US has withheld from selling due to military policy obliging them to ensure Israeli military superiority within the region. 

The suffering of Palestinians remains completely sidelined in this entire geopolitical picture; the Israeli government initially seemed to concede that they would withhold annexing parts of the West Bank, but Netanyahu’s recent actions indicate that they have only agreed to pause such operations temporarily over halting them outright. Palestinian leaders have referred to the deal as a “stab in the back” and a “politically childish move,” unanimously rejecting the same. They continue to remain under siege in extensive territories, their misfortunes compounded by the pandemic. Local journalists have decried the continuing spate of war crimes committed by the Israeli forces, disallowing refugees from returning to their homes and detaining them on unsubstantiated grounds in inhuman and degrading conditions, where they are subject to systemic torture and mistreatment. At present, few mainstream news sources are regularly reporting on the bombings in Gaza or the indiscriminate killings of Palestinian civilians, including children.  

WHEN ACHIEVEMENTS – NOT POLITICS – DETERMINES A WINNER

The present article could be rightly accused of providing far too bleak a picture had not this recurring pattern emerged on such a consistent and recent scale. However, many previous laureates could be rightly considered as worthy winners, and prevailing opinions on potential candidates for the 2020 Peace Prize provide compelling arguments in favour of certain institutions and individuals. Of late, the WHO is being put forth as a possible candidate, for its tireless efforts to curb the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic.  

In terms of previous winners among political figures, the definitive example is Jimmy Carter who was awarded in 2002, “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” Former US President Carter was one of the first to integrate a human rights-based approach to US foreign policy, and continues to be engaged in philanthropic and civil society-based activities long after his tenure as President. Another prominent political leader is former Finnish President, Marrti Ahtisaari, awarded in 2008 due to his arbitration and diplomacy efforts in Kosovo in 1999 and 2005-2007. Kosovo has recently been lauded for the free and fair elections conducted in October 2019 as observed by local and EU bodies, and their declaration of independence and sovereignty in 2008 hinged upon their commitment to the “Ahtisaari Plan”. The comparison is made herein merely to illustrate how the selection criteria in this regard seemed to hinge upon actual, measurable, sustained achievements—not simply verbal commitment towards high-flown ideals of justice and peace that are routinely sidelined within “realpolitik” operations.  

Noteworthy examples of private citizens include human rights defender Li Xiaobo, who was actually imprisoned during the time of his nomination and awarded due to his steadfast struggle for human rights protection and democracy against the repressive Chinese state. Joint winners having campaigned for the rights of children and young people. Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai are also examples of enacting in practice the values one is lauded for. Nadia Murad, a Yazidi human rights activist of Iraqi descent, was recently awarded for her efforts to draw attention to the use of sexual violence as a tool of war; similarly, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee, and Tawakkul Karman were awarded for their years of non-violent struggle towards ensuring the participation of women in peace-building efforts. 

It is unfortunate that the mainstay of political leaders is to balance out multiple, often conflicting, interests of different, often conflicting, stakeholders. Even well-intentioned individuals can find their hands tied due to a lack of institutional support. The contention remains, however, that rewarding them far too quickly and simply for formal—not substantive—commitment to ideals of peace, justice, and security is an ineffective means of deterring them from future actions that might unfortunately result in a deviation from such ideals. Similarly, awarding the representative of a particular regime simply to express rejection of another remains an unjustified, premature move—unless the future actions of the present regime reliably demonstrate their commitment to achievable, measurable, and sustainable solutions towards peace, justice, and security in the first place. This cannot be said to be the case for recent laureates and nominees. 

Upcoming generations of human rights defenders and stakeholders have a responsibility to agitate against political motivations underlying the selection of any particular individual or institution towards an acknowledgement of contributing towards the “greatest benefit to humankind”. 

Pallavi is a student at the University of Vienna, currently completing her Master of Arts in Human Rights. She has extensive experience in the fields of education, women's rights, community organization and development, and aims to channelize her research interests towards actionable change for vulnerable and marginalized populations.

LinkedIn