Is María Corina Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize a Prelude to Unrest in Venezuela?

Last Friday, the Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to María Corina Machado, an opposition leader from Venezuela and a favorite of official Washington. The award comes at an important moment for Venezuela — and some earlier Nobel Peace Prizes in Latin America were precursors to major political processes.

Foto: María Corina Machado Parisca

The importance of the Nobel Prize varies across different parts of the world, especially when it comes to the Peace Prize. Laureates are often perceived as champions of “the right causes” — those whose politics have prevailed or ought to prevail. Thus, it would be difficult for anyone to argue that figures like Nelson Mandela or Willy Brandt were undeserving of such recognition.

But other recipients have provoked sharply divided opinions. The award to Henry Kissinger is one such case, as is that of Aung San Suu Kyi. Critics argue that both Kissinger and the Burmese politician did so much harm that a brief flash of humanity in their long political careers could not possibly justify a Nobel Peace Prize.

There are also examples that border on the tragicomic. In 2009, the Peace Prize was given — as people would say — “for his good looks” to newly elected U.S. President Barack Obama. During his two terms, Obama was involved in military operations in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Uganda, and the Central African Republic, among others. In the end, in Kunduz, he bombed Doctors Without Borders — themselves recipients of the same prize — and never faced accountability for it.

Given these and other examples, it is hardly surprising that U.S. President Donald Trump demanded a Nobel Prize for himself after declaring that he was a peacemaker even in wars that were never fought.

Latin America and the Nobel Prize: From Literature to Politics

In Latin America, the selection of Nobel laureates sometimes resonates almost like a message from Europe — a reminder of what is expected from its long-departed relatives on the distant continent.

While the Nobel Prizes for Literature — several of them since 1945 — were largely received as recognition of the region’s literary excellence, in a part of the world moving away from Spain even as the Spanish language remained and flourished, giving rise to what Nobel laureate Mario Vargas Llosa called the “richness of Latin American and Spanish culture,” the Nobel Peace Prizes — in effect, awards for political action — often poured fuel into the engines of ongoing political processes.

Thus, in 1980, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Argentine human rights activist Adolfo Pérez Esquivel for his fight against the country’s military and civilian dictatorship — a victory celebrated as a defeat for the right-wing regimes strongly supported, among others, by Kissinger himself.

The 1987 Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to Costa Rican President Óscar Arias Sánchez, helped foster a series of peace agreements in Central America, supported by Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua — arrangements that would later shape key political, economic, and regional relations.

In 2016, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos received the Peace Prize with the explanation that he was the key figure who could end the decades-long war in his country.

As in Obama’s case, the Nobel Committee sought to encourage Santos to deliver peace — though the results of the two men’s presidencies were quite different. Santos spent years negotiating with armed guerrillas and reached a peace agreement with them, only for Colombians to reject the deal in a referendum just five days before the Nobel announcement. Although weary of war, they did not want peace “at any price.”

In the following years, guerrillas and the government reached various agreements, paving the way for Gustavo Petro’s 2022 election as Colombia’s first leftist president — a development that brought significant political change to the country.

Peace for Oil-Rich Venezuela

Petro became the first Colombian president sympathetic to the “revolution” in neighboring Venezuela, adding his name to the list of Latin American leaders who support the legacy of Hugo Chávez and his far less successful successor, Nicolás Maduro. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, María Corina Machado Parisca, has opposed both Chávez and Maduro for two decades.

Her selection as this year’s laureate surprised few. On the night before the announcement, betting agencies recorded a massive surge of wagers predicting her win. Kristian Berg Harpviken, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, confirmed the reports and told the media there were suspicions of espionage — announcing an investigation, without specifying who was under scrutiny.

Some might say that Trump did not place any bets but could still consider the prize his own — something the laureate herself confirmed in her conversation with him. She dedicated the award “to the people suffering in Venezuela and to President Trump for his determined support of our cause.” That “shared cause” is nothing less than the overthrow of Maduro and the establishment of a pro-American government in the country with the largest oil reserves in the world — a goal both Trump and Machado have repeatedly proclaimed.

her own country, calling on the United States, Argentina, and Israel to take action. She also demanded sanctions on Venezuela — even though existing sanctions have already forced millions to flee the nation to which she now promises to restore “freedom” and “peace.”

In its justification, the Nobel Committee described Machado as “one of the most extraordinary examples of civil courage in recent Latin American history,” portraying her as a “champion of peace” and a “key unifying figure within a once-divided opposition.” Committee chair Jørgen Watne Frydnes said she had “kept the flame of democracy alive in Venezuela during a period of growing darkness” and praised her for “remaining in the country despite serious threats to her life.”

A Battle of Life and Death

Machado is now wanted by authorities following yet another failed election for the opposition. The courts and electoral bodies — under Maduro’s control — barred her from running in last year’s presidential elections, citing her calls for foreign military intervention and sanctions.

Her political program has also been targeted by the government because it proposes that foreign corporations privatize Venezuela’s oil and other resources, and that the country pivot toward Washington. Her goal is to defeat “Chavismo” — the political legacy of Chávez and Maduro — which emphasizes state ownership of national wealth. Machado comes from a very wealthy family, while Maduro rose to power through his ties to Chávez, having started out as a bus driver and union organizer.

In essence, this is a clash between two opposing political visions and two political figures. Both sides have used various legitimate and illegitimate means to fight their battles — as shown by the Nobel laureate’s current status in Venezuela and her support for Trump after he placed a $50 million bounty on Maduro’s head, labeling him a member of a criminal organization and a threat to U.S. national security — thus making him a potential target for American attacks of all kinds.

For Maduro, Machado is a “demonic witch,” and his government fears that the Norwegian prize may be a prelude to a U.S. military assault. The Peace Prize awarded to Obama at the start of his first term was, after all, used to lend legitimacy to wars he later waged.

In recent days, a pro-Maduro newspaper published a caricature showing Machado in military uniform adorned with U.S. and Israeli flags, holding a scythe labeled “sanctions.”

Different Sides of the Same War

In foreign policy terms, the Venezuelan government and Machado stand on opposite sides. For more than two decades, Caracas has supported Palestine, while Machado backs Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — even as international courts hear genocide cases. She has equated the struggles of Venezuela and Israel, calling the Middle Eastern state “a true ally of freedom.”

Machado has long been prepared for a potential scenario of Maduro’s downfall. Among those who signed the letter nominating her for the Nobel Peace Prize last year was then–Senator Marco Rubio, now the U.S. Secretary of State. Rubio has been a long-time advocate of confronting left-wing governments in Latin America.

But that’s nothing new in the region. For decades, Latin America has been divided between pro-American and anti-American forces — and no one hides it.

Venezuela’s misfortune lies in the fact that it is governed by an exceptionally inept president, Maduro, whose administration often struggles with even the simplest tasks. Machado’s and Washington’s problem, however, is that millions of Venezuelans continue to defend even such a government by any means necessary — fearing that what might come after could be far worse.

And for the credibility of the Nobel Prize itself, it’s both fortunate and unfortunate that its long history has included laureates far better — and far worse — than this year’s winner.

This article was originally published on the nap.ba.

---