The views expressed herein represent the views of a majority of the members of the Caravel’s Editorial Board and are not reflective of the position of any individual member, the newsroom staff, or Georgetown University.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, elected by the Norwegian Parliament, awards the Nobel Peace Prize each year on December 10. (Wikimedia Commons)

The 2020 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded on October 9—not to President Donald Trump, who has talked and tweeted repeatedly about the prospect of receiving the award—but to the World Food Program (WFP) “for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict.”

The World Food Programme (WFP) distributes food and other relief items to communities in Nepal after the 2015 earthquake. The WFP serves over 86 million people across 83 countries each year. (Wikimedia Commons)

While the WFP has indeed worked tirelessly to solve the problem of food insecurity and hunger, interestingly, 2019 saw the largest number of people—135 million—suffering from acute hunger. The Norwegian Nobel Committee explained that part of its purpose in awarding the prize to the WFP is “to turn the eyes of the world towards the millions of people who suffer from or face the threat of hunger.” While a laudable goal, this reasoning also raises an important question: what does the Nobel Peace Prize actually reward? To be sure, the WFP has served 100 million people across 88 countries. However, the records of other laureates may be less clear cut, and the Committee’s reasons for choosing a particular laureate may be more in line with the secondary purpose of choosing the WFP: to raise public awareness, to reward expected outcomes, and ultimately to hand out “carrots” to encourage continued efforts towards supposed peace.

The Nobel Peace Prize is international affairs’ most prestigious recognition. Selected by a separate committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament, the Peace Prize was the fifth prize Alfred Nobel mentioned in his will and is the most unique of the Nobel Prizes. It is also deeply flawed, especially when awarded to politicians with mixed records as opposed to international organizations, career diplomats, or public servants. Its history is riddled with controversies—some more apparent than others.

In one extremely controversial decision, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, an already polarizing figure, was co-awarded the 1973 Prize with Vietnamese revolutionary Le Duc Tho. The Committee based its decision on Kissinger and Tho’s work in negotiating a cease-fire in the Vietnam War. Even disregarding arguably credible allegations of war crimes leveled against Kissinger, many considered the decision premature as the war did not officially end until 1975, and it happened largely independently of the agreement Kissinger helped negotiate. Two members of the Nobel Committee left in protest of Kissinger’s win, and Tho himself declined the award “on the grounds that his opposite number had violated the truce.”

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Myanmar State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi both won Nobel prizes widely viewed as controversial. (Flickr)

Myanmar State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi, another now-infamous figure, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize of 1991 "for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights." For the past four years, Myanmar has been embroiled in a genocide against the Rohingya people according to clear determinations made by the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, and others. Although Aung San Suu Kyi has been stripped of many titles and awards, including Amnesty International’s Ambassador of Conscience Award, the Nobel Committee has refused to follow suit.

Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Olav Njoelstad commented: “It’s important to remember that a Nobel prize, whether in physics, literature or peace, is awarded for some prize-worthy effort or achievement of the past.” However “prize-worthy” Aung San Suu Kyi’s “achievement” was, it failed to stand the test of time 15 years later when Myanmar security forces began large-scale persecution of the Rohingya people.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama wins the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. (Wikimedia Commons)

In 2009, former U.S. President Barack Obama received the award “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people." One may wonder how much lasting progress in international diplomacy and cooperation those “extraordinary” efforts have achieved, considering UN Secretary-General António Guterres said at a General Assembly meeting in January this year that “geopolitical tensions” and “global mistrust” are two of the greatest challenges of the twenty-first century.

Former Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Geir Lundestad commented that the Committee "thought [awarding Obama the Prize] would strengthen Obama, and it didn't have this effect." Lundestad’s clear acknowledgment that giving Obama the prize came with other political considerations calls into question the award’s supposed prestige.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has reveled authoritarian tendencies since winning the Peace Prize by increasing government crack-downs on political opponents and protesters. (Wikimedia Commons)

Just last year, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed won the Peace Prize "for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea." The border conflict may be over, but peace has not materialized. In the year since Ahmed received the award, his government has cracked down on thousands of political opponents and anti-government protesters, leading critics to claim that Ahmed’s government has reverted back to the authoritarian practices of the country’s past.

Far too often, the committee awards the prize early in the careers of international leaders, before they have fully proven themselves worthy of the prize. As opposed to the other, more technical prizes, which more often recognize notable achievements that come at the end of long and laudable careers in their fields, the Peace Prize often rewards potential and expected achievements.

Obama won his Peace Prize while openly acknowledging he had not yet done much to earn it. Critics charge he never did. Ahmed won his Peace Prize shortly after negotiating an important peace deal, but before revealing troubling authoritarian tendencies. Kissinger, a hawk if there ever were one, won a Peace Prize for peace negotiations that ultimately did nothing to improve the Vietnam conflict. Aung San Suu Kyi and her disgraceful involvement in the Rohingya genocide need no further clarification.

The pattern is clear. Especially among political awardees, the committee members tend to reward potential or short-lived achievement. Perhaps they want the prize to recognize some accomplishments, yes, but they mainly want to encourage continued pursuits of peace. Often, that results in Peace Prizes given to warmongers, genocide collaborators, or leaders with authoritarian tendencies. In these cases, the Peace Prize even fails to promote peace, as it rewards individuals before the completion of the initiatives for which they are rewarded or before those individuals have withstood the test of time. The Paris Peace Conference failed to bring about peace. Obama’s presidency failed to end ‘forever wars,’ and U.S. use of violence around the world increased. Aung San Suu Kyi failed to encourage a truly democratic and just government in Myanmar.

What’s the point of a Peace Prize that goes to individuals that do not live up to its premise, or when it awards projects that fail to promote peace? Where is the peace these supposedly-laudable recipients brought about?

The Nobel Peace Prize risks, with each controversial laureate and each prize awarded to encourage the potential for peace or to boost diplomatic efforts, meaninglessness. The Peace Prize best performs its function when recognizing the efforts of public servants, organizations, and career diplomats (or politicians for their efforts in pursuit of peace undertaken after exiting the electoral sphere). These Prizes much more frequently recognize actual achievements, years of hard work, and a genuine dedication to the betterment of humanity and to the principles of peace—rather than flashy diplomatic initiatives.

For the Nobel Peace Prize to retain its significance, it should avoid its habit of awarding politicians in the hopes that this large, prestigious carrot will encourage good behavior and actual achievements. Otherwise, we risk the Peace Prize serving less as a recognition of efforts to advance peace and more as a predictor of the next failed diplomatic initiative.

Have a different opinion? Write a letter to the editor and submit it via this form to be considered for publication on our website!