The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded regularly since 1901 for individuals “who 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”. Since then, this Prize has been awarded to 143 laureates, which included organisations, active politicians, policy makers and humanitarian workers.
Since the beginning, these prizes have never shied away from acknowledging the contributions made to ending active wars, humanitarian crises and acts to address major humanitarian concerns of their respective time. This attitude led to these awards being announced during the peak of the 20th century humanitarian crisis including the first and second world wars, anti-colonial movement, Israel-Palestine conflict, Vietnam war among many others. The prize has also been heavily criticised since the Cold War era, accused of being premature, politically motivated and ill defined in its criteria of contributions to peace. In the cases of individuals like Gandhi, Obama, Arafat, Ossietzky, Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, and organisations such as the EU, these criticisms became increasingly pronounced. However, each of these controversies portrayed the stance of these Prizes on major current crises or development of their time irrespective of them seeming to be premature or biased. However the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize failed to address any of the major ongoing crises of the year.
2025 saw active wars and conflicts involving several global powers including Russia, Ukraine, India, Iran, Israel, Cambodia and Thailand to name a few. Simultaneously several countries have witnessed regime changes following an unprecedented wave of Gen-Z led protests, not to mention the several humanitarian crises going on in Africa and West Asia. The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize chose to remain out of any of these crises or developments and award it to a politically convenient candidate- María Corina Machado.
The greatest pressure of the Nobel committee came from President Donald Trump who claimed to have successfully mediated at least eight global conflicts in 2025. Preemptively attacking the committee’s past choices, he repeatedly questioned the credibility of the committee, stating how he would never be giving the award despite his contributions.
Under this growing pressure, the committee aimed to achieve three objectives. First, it sought to get out of President Trump’s cross-hairs by nominating someone with whom President Trump could not disagree openly with. Second,the committee also sought to prevent nominating President Trump to avoid the image of succumbing to his pressure. Lastly, it sought to make sure this nomination remained away from being tagged as premature or hypocritical as in the past, by avoiding nominees from complex conflicts active in the public image.
The Nobel Peace Prize, through its controversial yet firm stances, remained a politically charged symbol of hope, if not of peace, representing certain sides of historic conflicts, and humanitarian crises. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, the awards reminded humankind of incredible stories of human effort to sustain hope, peace and possibilities in dark eras where the dark forces of human nature overshadowed the good in humanity.
The violence and turmoil of 2025 marks another important turning point for humankind, and a symbol like the Nobel Peace Prize, irrespective of its flaws, controversies, and political leanings, had the potential of acting as a symbol of hope during these important times. Its ability to highlight and honor stories of organisations, leaders, and humanitarian workers, is something that the year 2025 could have used. However, the committee’s prioritisation of political convenience and controversy aversion has failed to use this opportunity, leaving the world more polarised in its wake.