She’s also in hiding since the last elections, likely on an embassy but undetermined.
I think this prize recognizes her courage and fight for human rights.
Dismissing that as "just being in the opposition" ignores the reality of what it takes to stand up to Maduro's dictatorship.
You can also verify the results here https://macedoniadelnorte.com/ (a whole story behind this hostname). Again, only possible by the María Corina's huge effort
Scarier when you understand that 20 years is way too long an estimate for this.
Europe is watching.
She also received the Sakharov Prize not long ago; if she had to receive only one, the latter would be easier to explain.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/fernando-alban...
It completely banalizes the risks people like Machado face just for opposing authoritarian power.
Pretending there's any equivalence between the two situations says a lot about your worldview, or lack thereof.
On top of that, if I am not mistaken, Russia doesn't know what Democracy is. (Yeltsin and Medvedev up for discussion) As a result, for starters, Maduro can't make radical changes in the army.
I respect that she opposed the Burmese military junta most of her life, but then a year after coming to power in 2015, she defended the military against charges of complicity in the Rohingya genocide to preserve her fragile government.
Personally, I think the Peace Prize shouldn't go to politicians at all.
I think that is a understandable approach (providing support), though it can lead to giving the prize to people who never achieve any of their goals. Whether that’s a worthy trade off I do not know.
That's like giving the Nobel in physics to someone that has worked all their life publishing papers but they all have been refuted and proven wrong.
I don't think "prize" for the merit of being relentless in their fight for publishing physics papers is merited, maybe a different honor, but Peace Nobels should be given to - and i quote -:
"to the person 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."
standing up and risking their lives for the good of humanity merrits more then a nobel price can give!
A dictatorship can be peaceful, and a democracy can be warlike. Venezuela hasn't been involved in any war recently as far as I know. Of course people who fight for democracy deserve being praised and supported, but to me it looks odd to do so with a peace prize.
The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who 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". Is this the case here?
So I guess you could also claim that democracy helps maintain peace from that point of view, and a person who successfully proved that a "democratic election" really wasn't democratic at all feels like the right thing to award, as it'll further international peace.
edit: the submission article also talks briefly about how peace and democracy is linked (in their eyes):
> Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarisation. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.
I know it's frowned upon, but did you actually read the submission article? They're highlighting exactly why they've chosen her, including what meaningful work she has already done:
> The efforts of the collective opposition, both before and during the election, were innovative and brave, peaceful and democratic. The opposition received international support when its leaders publicised the vote counts that had been collected from the country’s election districts, showing that the opposition had won by a clear margin. But the regime refused to accept the election result, and clung to power.
Maybe you have some better suggestions on who this award should have gone to? Of all the candidates, I guess in the end she was seen as having done a lot, but in your mind she've done nothing, which means you're thinking about some other person who did more?
The roadmap was laid out by Cecil Rhodes in his letters and will and extensively documented in "The Secret Society" by Robin Brown.
It's quite fascinating to see their networks with the benefit of hindsight. For example, Mountbatten installed Nehru as the first unelected PM of India.
Aung San Suu Kyi was educated in New Delhi India and during that time, she lived in Nehru's home.
I think they're older than that, Nobel apparently left a will that included three conditions for what we today call the Nobel Peace Prize:
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses.
https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/full-text-of-alfred-...
I think if there are no suitable candidates the award should be skipped. Like it has been skipped many years for the same reasons. This would send a more powerful message about how fucked up the state of the world is rather than giving it to someone just for the sake of it.
> and one part to the person who has done the most or best to advance fellowship among nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the establishment and promotion of peace congresses
Go to her Wikipedia article, do a quick skim/read and then tell me how she doesn't fit with those conditions already?
Why skip the prize when there are individuals that fit the conditions for the prize? Working for democracy and peace in a peaceful and democratic manner shouldn't be rewarded?
Not everything is about oils or some conspiracy of western governments.
Abiy Ahmed (2019), from Ethiopia, ended the cold war with Eritrea. Then he launched a war against the region of Tigray, with mass rapes and mass civilian killings. He harassed the free press, and turned the country into an autocracy.
Juan Manuel Santos (2016) from Colombia and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (2011) from Liberia later appeared in Paradise Papers because they had secret offshore companies in Panama and Barbades. Their political activity was more tame after the prize than before. Both ended their presidential tenures with plummeting approval rates, especially because of corruption allegations.
Barack Obama (2009) received the Prize for his generous discourses on foreign policy, just after being elected. Then he lead the USA to more war in Afghanistan, and a new war in Libya. He helped Saudi Arabia invade Yemen (UN states this war killed 300,000 people). He helped the Egyptian army with its coup, that killed thousands of opponents and sent 60,000 in jails (including the elected president who died there).
In my opinion, this prize is, most of the time, a dark and heavily political joke.
So you're saying that the Nobel Peace committee has not been following their standards? I find this pretty hard to prove... it's like if you were telling me that even if I say that my favourite color is green, it probably isn't because green is not that special a colour.
Imagine one day we wake up after the usual yawn-inducing sham elections in Russia and Putin won as usual but a large chunk of the country, probably a plurality of it, is utterly convinced that it was completely fake and that Navalny won.
Without anybody using violence to do it.
Those who think there is nothing to be done but to counter authoritarianism without another authoritarian, or violence, or just to give up and suffer it - might be inspired by this.
I'm not the NNC but that seems like a "meaningful accomplishment".
You could ask: "Sure, allright, the populace was convinced that election was a sham. But... Maduro is still in power so she still hasn't done much". Let me flip it around, perhaps: What did Gandi ever actually accomplish? Isn't it the same thing: Show that violence is not a necessary element, get the people to reframe the situation a bit?
Can we prove Gandi sped up the UK's exit? Even if we can, one of those holocaust level holy heck humanity can get extremely dark moments in history that is rarely talked about is the absolute terror that occurred during the split of the Raj into India and Pakistan.
My point is: Judging the eligibility of a person for a peace prize on the basis of 'measurable meaningful accomplishment' is not how it works and probably shouldn't be how it works. It's either a bullshit prize (kissinger got one...) or it is like making a statue of somebody: It takes a person, turns them into a principle or ideal. Even though humans are much more complex than that.
The notion of "one is capable of being in opposition in an autocratic regime and get stuff done without resorting to violence" got a peace prize, but as per the dictat of Alfred Nobel, only people can get it, so, they stuck the label "Maria Corina Machado" on it. And that wasn't a bad labelling: She really did accomplish 'meaningfully' that goal, at least, I'd gather according to most folks' definition of the word 'capable'.
If you walk around all day on metaphorical eggshells, surrounded by armed people who will beat you, torture you, disappear you, kill you and your family if you say the wrong thing, that is not a peaceful existence!
While the point you're trying to make may or may not be valid, Venezuela is not a good example. Go read up on the Venezuela-Guyana crisis. The Maduro regime has been pushing the region closer to war in recent years. Renewing its claims to Guyanan territory, and preparing its military for war. For now, all out invasion has been prevented partially by significant support for Guyana and pressure against Venezuela from neighbouring countries and the west, and distraction from its own internal problems.
I'm not sure you could claim the award is a joke because of people did after being awarded it, especially when most people awarded didn't launch new wars or helped coups.
It’s a very sad history of oppression and corruption that has forced many Venezuelans to pull up their roots and risk their lives leaving their own country. It would be a dream come true to see this dictatorship overthrown and replaced by a democratic system of government that serves the people.
Aung San Suu Kyi, 1991 prize winner, resided over the genocide of the Rohingya people.
The amount of presumption, ignorance, and lack of reflection in your comment is astounding. It shows that you don't take life seriously and/or don't understand what risks being an opposition party in a dictatorship actually entails.
Exactly this happened in Belarus in 2020. Government wasn't shy of using its power though, many people got long prison sentences, many people had to run, nothing changed wrt to dictatorship. I don't see anything inspiring in this story honestly.
Nothing in the criteria for the handing out the prize has anything about the reception having any sort of specific character, good or bad. This is all of the conditions for the award:
> Fraternity between nations; abolition or reduction of standing armies; and the holding and promotion of peace congresses
So every year they look at candidates and what they've done within those things, then make an judgement.
They kidnap, torture and kill political prisoners.
Deployed the national guard on the favelas to kill indiscriminately thousands without a fair trial.
You can Google all the UN reports on these matters.
Without US sanctions Venezuela, and Venezuelans, would be in a dramatically better place today.
I take it you haven't read the news in approximately 6 months?
The committee "thought it would strengthen Obama and it didn't have this
effect", Lundestad told the Associated Press, though he fell short of calling
the award a mistake.[145] "In hindsight, we could say that the argument of
giving Obama a helping hand was only partially correct", Lundestad wrote.
No. They wouldn't. The Venezuelan government has proven extremely incompetent to produce oil.
What the Trump's tariffs have shown to the world is that, in the scale globalization is today, trade with the US doesn't matter that much anymore. Case in point: Brazil. After Trump stuck 50% tariffs on them, their exports to other countries grew much more than enough to offset the loss to the U.S.
The US embargo on Venezuela is a lot like its embargo in Cuba, Iran and North Korea: it is not the cause of people suffering but is an excuse by those corrupt and incompetent regimes to hide their failures.
In 2014 there were mass protests against the government, in reality it was an attempt to overthrow the government, which was responded to with brutality. That brutality was met with sanctions. Today their GDP/capita is about $5000. That's obviously going to be explained in part by the decline in oil prices around the same time, but not to that degree, to say the least.
* - As an addendum here it's also unclear to me how exactly Wiki is calculating that figure and whether it accounts for, in any way, the substantial scale of emigration from Venezuela. If not, then the relative decline is even larger than it sounds.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_in_Venezuela#/media/Fil...
(I'll believe the west's "concerns" on Venezuela's "democracy" and "human rights" when they overthrow the dictators in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE - where western companies are allowed to profit from oil resources in these regions - and bring "democracy" there).
You may also want to educate yourself on the real reason for the Gaza Genocide and why Trump and Tony Blair ( https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5j989107lo ) now plan to "directly administrate" Gaza - (1) https://asiatimes.com/2025/02/trumps-gaza-takeover-all-about... (2) https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-israel-brutal... ... As always, the sudden interest by the ex-colonials to bring "democracy" in Palestine is also about oil and gas.
I get frustrated in the US we are always thinking in terms of the next election. Movements that effect lasting change: civil rights, national independence movements, ending slavery, heck even the current conservative regime in the US, are all multigenerational efforts with clear principles and goals that get passed down.
Many government officials in Venezuela have direct involvement with various industries, including oil. So it suddenly becomes this extremely complex and dangerous mess when doing any trade whatsoever with Venezuela. This is why their economy completely collapsed following the sanctions.
[1] - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/03/11/2015-05...
There are people that have WALKED all over the continent to flee, all the way to the US and Canada or Argentina, Chile, etc.
I have little doubt she did a lot of good practical work for Venezuelan democracy (to expose Maduro's government). But her ideology - accept foreign invasion (which will inevitably kill innocent venezuelans) and privatizing oil reserves (which will inevitably result in undemocratic fallout of the profits) - is unfortunately not that of peace and democracy.
I wish she would more look at Norway as an example, which is a rare case of oil profits being shared collectively and democratically.
I don't really understand what you're arguing for or against. That this woman doesn't deserve the prize because there are places worse than Venezuela? What does that have to do with the Nobel peace prize? This isn't a "pick the worst place on earth" contest.
I honestly don't understand any of the complaints in these comments. Is it because she's a woman? Or what? I've not seen anybody make any substantial arguments as to why she shouldn't be eligible.
A little premature, anyway. Let's get through 24 hours of a ceasefire first. That'd be an achievement these days ...
>Every Country has signed on! If this LAST CHANCE agreement is not reached, all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas.
That's not negotiating.
Gandhi is the one who made Patel step aside in favour of Nehru, despite the latter losing the April 1946 election for the role Congress president; the understanding with the British was that the President of the Congress would be the first PM.
Gandhi had a history of appeasement and compliance (see "The South African Gandhi" by Vahed and Desai) to the British, so Patel could be considered compromised indirectly. Personally I don't believe Patel was a stooge, just a victim of the personality cult around Gandhi.
As for "Azad" - real name Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin - I have not looked into his history.
I don't see how wishing a foreign country to militarily overthrow a regime in your country promotes peace.
If we also include democracy to that umbrella, I don't see how support of privatization of natural resources can be considered promotion of democracy.
She's probably not as bad as Milei but.. I would not rule out a similar outcome.
Side note: Democracy will not work in Egypt until the Muslim Brotherhood loses popularity and/or Islam in the region becomes more moderate. Until then, you're just going to end up with the same situation as Ethiopia and Tigray with a Brotherhood-dominated government and the Copts.
Venezuela had the biggest oil earnings of its history during the early Chavez years and all that money was pilfered. The oil industry infrastructure, the electric infrastructure is currently in shambles due to lack of investment, maintenance and corruption. Part of the recovery of Venezuela will require external investments just to get production back to the levels we had before this calamity.
They also took massive loans in exchange for future oil at insane prices, when people argues that we are going to lose our oil if X or Y happens to me it doesn’t mean anything, because we already lost it with these inept criminals in the government anyway.
Edit: even Maduro is now offering our country’s riches to the US in exchange for remaining in power:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/world/americas/maduro-ven...
Also, Maduro is willing to trade our natural resources if it gets him more years in power:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/10/world/americas/maduro-ven...
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/848/the-official-unofficial...
> The prize is supposed to be awarded to people who 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".
That's the one-liner from Nobel's will. It obviously leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and historically has often been awarded for civil rights advocacy.
> On May 6, with eight months left before he vacates the White House, Mr. Obama passed a somber, little-noticed milestone: He has now been at war longer than Mr. Bush, or any other American president.
It wasn't all inherited conflicts. He also oversaw the 2011 intervention in Libya, the 2014 involvement in Syria, and the 2014 re-intervention in Iraq after having withdrawn troops in 2011.
[1]: NYT: https://archive.is/diXo5
Let's be real, sanctions play a big role in the economic decline of Venezuela.
Saudi Arabia isn't a democracy. In fact, it's a very problematic totalitarian regime, where women have limited rights and the royalty has been known to kill enemies. They very much mismanage money, with ridiculous projects, ostentatious lifestyles if you're royalty or the elite, and have the "highest prevalence of modern slavery of all countries in the Arab States region" [1].
Saudi Arabia is doing well economically though because it isn't sanctioned by the USA, and you don't hear bad press about it's totalitarian regime, or corruption, etc. because it's a USA ally.
If the USA cared about how people are treated by their government, they'd be in Sudan or Congo. The USA cares about getting rid of Maduro, so they will make it as difficult as possible for the Venezuelan regime to make money from its oil, while pointing out all that's wrong and blaming Maduro for everything.
I'm not saying things are well in Venezuela, or that Maduro is a good leader. I'm saying this is all part of a playbook that's been successful before, and it's reductionist to not blame the USA for Venezuela's decline.
[1]: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studie...
> Machado defines herself — and her party, Vente Venezuela — as “liberal” (or neoliberal, depending on how you look at it), both politically and economically. Her political vision revolves around reducing the size of the state as a provider of public policies, supporting entrepreneurship and promoting the free market, as a means of creating wealth and jobs in a devastated economy. Her vision of government is similar to what Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan had in mind ... The presidential candidate has proposed privatizing the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) — a taboo in local politics — and returning all the companies that have been expropriated by the Chavista regime to their rightful owners. This also includes Siderúrgica Venezolana — a company that her father (who died this year) was the president of, before it was seized ... Her vision on the distribution of social funds is somewhat more American than European, as is her deeply anti-communist discourse.
Source: https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-10-01/maria-co...
The same goes for the Aung San Suu Kyi connection. Labeling her a "compliant native" seems to ignore the 15 years she spent under house arrest actively fighting against a military junta. That's a pretty high price to pay for being a supposed puppet.
Look at the history of people the US sponsors in regime change operations around the world, and how things turn out. So long as they're loyal to the US, first and foremost, anything goes. Carlos Castillo Armas, Fulgencio Batista, Humberto Castelo Blanco, Augusto Pinochet, Efrain Rios Montt and many more though I'm limiting myself to the Americas. Of course I can fully understand the perspective that 'anything must be better than this shit show.' But it often turns out, in hindsight, that that's not exactly the case.
And in general this is a big part of the reason that I'm highly opposed to the US meddling in countries around the world. There's always such a heavy price to pay in American dollars and the blood of others. And.. for what? Yeah yeah, this time it's different...
