The Nobel Peace Prize is widely regarded as the world’s most prestigious recognition for contributions to peace. Yet, its history is riddled with controversy, contradictions, and allegations of bias. Recent debates over Donald Trump’s nomination—endorsed by leaders from Pakistan and Israel—have reignited questions about the standards, transparency, and legitimacy of the prize.
The cases of laureates like Barack Obama, Abiy Ahmed, and Malala Yousafzai, alongside the glaring omission of Mahatma Gandhi and the divisive candidacy of Trump, highlight the fundamental ambiguities and political undercurrents that shape the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Standards and Yardsticks: What Does the Nobel Committee Reward?
Alfred Nobel’s will stipulated that the Peace Prize should go 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.”
In practice, however, the Norwegian Nobel Committee—comprising five members appointed by Norway’s parliament—has broad discretion in interpreting these criteria. Nominations can be submitted by a select group of qualified individuals, including members of national governments, university professors, and previous laureates.
Nominee lists are confidential for fifty years, and the committee’s deliberations are secretive, with no public accountability or transparent standards for what constitutes “the most or the best work for peace”.
The Contradictory and Discriminatory Nature of the Prize
From its inception, the Nobel Peace Prize has been shaped by a Eurocentric perspective and a lack of diversity. The Norwegian Nobel Committee is almost exclusively composed of Norwegians, often retired politicians, raising questions about its ability to represent a global community.
While Alfred Nobel’s will require the Norwegian parliament to appoint the committee, it did not mandate that all members be Norwegian. Yet, for decades, the committee’s composition and selections reflected a narrow, Western-centric worldview. Until 1960, all laureates were from Europe or North America.
It took 50 years for the first non-White winner to be recognized, and 72 years for the first Asian laureate—Le Duc Tho, who famously refused the award.
Out of 111 individual laureates, only a small fraction are from Asia or Africa, underscoring the committee’s historical bias. This lack of representation has led to the exclusion of many deserving figures from the Global South and a tendency to overlook national movements for independence or peace in colonial societies.
The Omission of Mahatma Gandhi
The committee’s failure to honor Mahatma Gandhi, the architect of nonviolent resistance and a global symbol of peace, remains its most glaring omission. Gandhi was nominated five times but never received the prize.
In 1939, he was nominated alongside Adolf Hitler, and in 1948, with Joseph Stalin—neither year resulting in a prize for Gandhi. The committee’s Eurocentric outlook and reluctance to recognize anti-colonial leaders are widely seen as key reasons for this oversight.
Former Nobel Institute director Geir Lundestad called the omission of Gandhi the greatest failure in the prize’s history, poignantly asking, “Whether the Nobel committee can do without Gandhi is the question.” Ironically, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, both inspired by Gandhi, were later awarded the prize.
Controversial and Premature Awards
The Nobel Peace Prize has often been awarded in ways that reflect political expediency, symbolism, or hope, rather than concrete achievements. Barack Obama received the prize in 2009, less than a year into his presidency, for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” despite the U.S. being engaged in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the time.
Abiy Ahmed of Ethiopia was honored in 2019 for ending the conflict with Eritrea, but within two years, Ethiopia descended into civil war, casting doubt on the committee’s foresight and the durability of the peace it sought to reward. Malala Yousafzai’s 2014 prize for her advocacy of girls’ education was celebrated, yet it also reflected the committee’s preference for symbolic figures whose work, while inspiring, may not have directly resolved major conflicts.
Other controversial choices include Yasser Arafat, who shared the prize in 1994 with Israeli leaders for the Oslo Accords, despite his association with violent acts. Henry Kissinger’s 1973 award for the Paris Peace Accords was so contentious that two committee members resigned in protest, as Kissinger had authorized bombings during the Vietnam War negotiations.
The Irony of Alfred Nobel’s Legacy
The contradictions of the Nobel Peace Prize begin with its founder. Alfred Nobel amassed his fortune by inventing dynamite and advancing weapons technology, including rockets and cannons. His inventions revolutionized warfare and earned him the moniker “the merchant of death.”
A premature obituary famously declared, “Nobel became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before.” Troubled by his legacy, Nobel established the Peace Prize to be remembered for promoting peace rather than destruction.
The Selection Process: Opaque and Politicized
The Nobel Peace Prize selection process is marked by secrecy, exclusivity, and a lack of accountability. The committee’s deliberations are confidential, and its members are drawn from a narrow pool, often lacking diversity in ideology, culture, and geography.
As Berit Ås, a Norwegian parliamentarian, argued in 1974, the committee should better represent the world community. Yet, the prize’s history shows that national and political considerations often influence decisions, undermining its claim to universality.
Accusations of sexism, racism, and political motivation have dogged the prize. The committee’s choices frequently reflect the prevailing political climate, rewarding ongoing efforts or sending messages rather than recognizing completed achievements.
The result is a pattern of premature, symbolic, or controversial awards, alongside the exclusion of transformative peacebuilders who do not fit the committee’s mold.
The Case of Donald Trump
Donald Trump’s recent nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, supported by Israel and Pakistan, has reignited debate over the prize’s standards and legitimacy. Trump’s role in brokering the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states, and his efforts to de-escalate conflicts in the Middle East have been cited as grounds for consideration.
It is argued that if preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and securing ceasefires in volatile regions do not merit the prize, then the criteria are meaningless. However, it points to Trump’s polarizing leadership and other aspects of his foreign policy as inconsistent with the spirit of the award.
Trump himself has questioned the legitimacy of the prize, noting that Obama received it for “practically nothing.” The controversy over Trump’s candidacy illustrates the prize’s enduring contradictions: it has honored U.S. presidents for both symbolic and substantive reasons, often in ways that reflect political interests rather than clear, consistent standards.
The Nobel Peace Prize stands as a global symbol of peace, yet its history is riddled with contradictions and controversial omissions. Its opaque, Eurocentric, and politicized selection process has produced both celebrated and questionable choices. Until the committee addresses these flaws, debates over who truly deserves the prize will continue to overshadow its legacy.