Nobel Peace Prize Sparks Secret Debate

Behind the Sealed Doors: The Politics and Prestige of the Nobel Peace Prize

Since 1901, a select group has convened annually in Oslo, shrouded in secrecy. They are the Norwegian Nobel Committee, entrusted with selecting the recipient of the planet's most distinguished award for peace. In a historic first, the committee recently granted journalists a glimpse into their sacred proceedings, pulling back the curtain on a decision that captivates the globe. This year, the announcement carries a particular weight, amplified by the persistent and public campaign of one of the world's most recognisable figures: Donald Trump. His desire for the prize has introduced a modern dynamic to a tradition steeped in history, forcing a global conversation about the very nature of peace and who is deemed worthy of its ultimate recognition.

The Sanctum of Deliberation

The committee’s meeting room, located inside the Nobel Institute in Oslo, is a chamber seemingly untouched by time. Oak furniture and a grand chandelier, present since the inaugural prize, create an atmosphere of solemnity. The room's vertical surfaces are a testament to history, adorned with portraits of every laureate, from Henry Dunant to Malala Yousafzai, with a conspicuous space left vacant for the next honoree. The group begins the final phase of an evaluation that lasts for months, right below a painting of Alfred Nobel, who ironically endowed the prize after inventing dynamite. Formal proceedings commence with coffee and civilities before the crucial work begins, a culmination of exhaustive research and passionate debate over the year's nominees.

A Process Rooted in Tradition

Selecting a laureate for the peace accolade is a meticulous and guarded affair. The cycle begins in September of the preceding year when the committee invites thousands of qualified individuals—including members of national governments, university professors, and former laureates—to submit nominations. By the 31 January deadline, hundreds of candidates, both individuals and organisations, are put forward for consideration. In a recent cycle, 338 nominees were proposed. The committee then spends months reviewing each case, compiling a shortlist, and seeking reports from a team of expert advisers. The final decision is typically reached in the last meeting before the October announcement, a choice made by majority vote if consensus proves elusive. The deliberations, nominees, and opinions are kept strictly confidential for five decades, a rule designed to protect the procedure from political pressure and speculation.

The Will of a Complicated Man

Alfred Nobel’s 1895 testament laid out the requirements for receiving the award. He dictated it should be given to the person who has contributed the most to "fraternity between nations," the "abolition or reduction of standing armies," and the "holding and promotion of peace congresses." Nobel, whose inventions revolutionised warfare, had a complex legacy. A French newspaper erroneously published his obituary, headlining it "The merchant of death is dead." This event is believed to have motivated him to establish the prizes to reshape his public image and support causes that would benefit humanity. While the prizes for physics, chemistry, medicine, and literature are awarded in Sweden, Nobel inexplicably entrusted the selection of the peace honor to a committee chosen by the Norwegian Parliament.

Trump's Unprecedented Campaign

The decorum and secrecy that traditionally envelop the distinguished peace award have been challenged by Donald Trump’s very public and persistent campaign. Through speeches, press conferences, and social media, he has consistently argued his own case, citing his role in brokering the Abraham Accords and other diplomatic efforts. His supporters have amplified this message, with allies in international politics, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, openly endorsing his nomination. This public lobbying is a departure from the discreet advocacy usually associated with the honor. It has transformed the deliberation into a global spectacle, putting the Norwegian panel under an intense and unfamiliar spotlight as it navigates the intersection of tradition and modern political theatre.

Image  Credit - by Bjørn Erik Pedersen, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

A Committee Under Scrutiny

Norway's parliament chooses the five members of the Nobel Committee to reflect the political balance of the Storting, though they act independently. The current committee is a blend of former politicians and human rights advocates. Jorgen Watne Frydnes, the youngest-ever chair, has a background in human rights and championing free speech. Other members include Asle Toje, a foreign policy scholar; Anne Enger, a former acting prime minister; Kristin Clemet, a former minister of education; and Gry Larsen, a former state secretary with a focus on women's rights. Despite their diverse backgrounds, they share a fierce commitment to upholding the integrity of Nobel's will. Frydnes has acknowledged the external pressures, stating that while the world's attention is palpable, the committee's duty is to remain principled in its choices.

The Politics of Peace

The Oslo-based honor has never been immune to controversy. Its inherently political nature means that selections are often met with both praise and criticism. The 1973 prize given to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their efforts to end the Vietnam War was extremely divisive, prompting two committee members to resign in protest. More recently, the 2009 award to Barack Obama, very early in his presidency, drew criticism for honouring promise rather than accomplishment. The 1991 prize to Aung San Suu Kyi, celebrated at the time, was later scrutinised following her government's handling of the Rohingya crisis. These instances highlight the challenge the committee faces: bestowing an accolade that is often a reflection of contemporary events and personalities, a decision that will inevitably be judged by history.

The Echo of Past Controversies

History offers a complex backdrop to the committee's annual decision. The 1994 prize to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin for the Oslo Accords was seen as a hopeful step, yet the peace it celebrated proved fragile. Similarly, the 2019 prize given to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed for his role in ending the conflict with Eritrea was later eclipsed by the brutal civil war in the Tigray region. These cases serve as stark reminders that peace is often a process, not a permanent state, and that the individuals involved can have complicated and evolving legacies. The committee must weigh not only the achievements of a nominee but also the potential for their actions to create lasting, positive change, a task that is fraught with uncertainty and the potential for future critique.

A History of Diplomatic Fallout

The Nobel Committee is no stranger to the geopolitical consequences of its decisions. The 2010 prize given to Liu Xiaobo, a jailed dissident from China, triggered a furious response from Beijing. The Chinese government condemned the award as a "blasphemy" and an interference in its internal affairs. Diplomatic relations with Norway were frozen, economic sanctions were imposed, and the relationship between the two nations remained strained for six years. This incident underscored the high stakes involved in honouring individuals who challenge authoritarian regimes. It demonstrated that the committee's choices can have far-reaching implications, impacting international relations and placing Norway in the crosshairs of powerful global actors. Despite this, the committee has historically stood by its decisions, asserting its independence in the face of political intimidation.

American Presidents and the Prize

Four presidents from the United States have received the accolade for peace, each under different circumstances. Theodore Roosevelt obtained the prize in 1906 for his mediation in the Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson was honoured in 1919 for his role in founding the League of Nations. Jimmy Carter received the distinction in 2002, long after his presidency, for his decades of work promoting peace and human rights through the Carter Center. Barack Obama's 2009 award remains one of the most debated, with even Obama expressing surprise at being chosen so early in his tenure. These laureates reflect the varied ways in which leadership can be perceived on the global stage, from direct conflict resolution to the long-term pursuit of diplomatic ideals. Trump's aspiration to join this exclusive club has reignited discussions about what it truly means for a global leader to champion peace.

The Nomination Hurdle

One significant obstacle for Donald Trump's candidacy in any given year is the submission deadline. The nomination period for the prestigious peace award concludes when January ends, a timeline that often precedes major diplomatic breakthroughs. While members of the committee can add their own nominations at their first meeting after the deadline, the vast majority of candidates are submitted by the January cutoff. This logistical reality means that a candidate's most significant achievements in a particular year may not be considered until the following year's prize cycle. For a figure like Trump, whose political actions are often fast-paced and high-profile, this temporal lag can be a crucial factor in the committee's deliberations. It highlights the prize's focus on sustained effort rather than momentary triumphs.

The Global Perspective

From a university library in Oslo, the debate over the peace accolade takes on a different tone. Students of peace and conflict studies often view the award through a lens of humility and humanitarianism. Many believe the prize should acknowledge the unsung heroes of peacebuilding—the grassroots organisations and activists who risk their lives for a cause greater than themselves. The high-profile campaigns of world leaders can seem, in this context, to be at odds with the award's spirit. The example of Malala Yousafzai, the young Pakistani activist attacked by the Taliban for advocating for girls' education, is often cited as the epitome of what the prize should represent: courage, selflessness, and an unwavering commitment to human rights in the face of adversity.

A Prize of Hope or Achievement?

A recurring debate surrounding the peace prize is whether it should reward concrete achievements or encourage ongoing efforts. The prize to Barack Obama is often seen as an example of the latter—an award based on the hope and promise of his presidency. Critics argue that this approach can devalue the distinction, making it a tool of political encouragement rather than an acknowledgement of tangible results. Proponents, however, contend that the prize can be a powerful instrument for change, empowering individuals and organisations to continue their work by giving them a global platform. The committee must constantly navigate this delicate balance, deciding whether to honour a completed chapter of peace or to invest in the potential of a story still being written.

The Unseen Nominees

While the world speculates about high-profile candidates, the full list of nominees remains a closely guarded secret for half a century. This confidentiality allows the committee to consider a wide range of candidates without the influence of public opinion. Among the hundreds of nominations each year are likely individuals and organisations whose work is largely unknown to the general public. These are the human rights defenders, the environmental activists, the mediators in forgotten conflicts—the quiet architects of peace. The secretive nature of the procedure ensures that their work can be evaluated on its merits, away from the glare of the media spotlight that so often focuses on the powerful and the famous. It is a testament to the idea that the most profound contributions to peace are not always the most visible.

The Enduring Legacy

The interior of the Nobel Institute, lined with the faces of past laureates, tells a story of global struggles and triumphs. These portraits recall the campaign against apartheid, the movement to ban nuclear weapons, and the ongoing battle for human rights. Each new picture added to the collection becomes a part of this enduring narrative. The annual announcement of the peace honor is more than just an award; it is a statement of values, a reflection of the planet's conscience. This year, as the committee deliberated behind closed doors, the shadow of a very public campaign loomed large. But whatever the outcome, the prize will continue to represent humanity's highest aspirations—a beacon of hope in a world too often defined by conflict. The final decision, and the reasons behind it, will remain locked away for five decades, a secret held in trust for future generations.