SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
maría corina machado
Protest in Oslo Denounces Nobel Peace Prize for Right-Wing Machado
"No peace prize for warmongers," said one of the banners displayed by demonstrators, who derided Machado's support for President Donald Trump's regime change push in Venezuela.
Dec 10, 2025
As President Donald Trump issued new threats of a possible ground invasion in Venezuela, protesters gathered outside the Norwegian Nobel Institute in Oslo on Tuesday to protest the awarding of the prestigious peace prize to right-wing opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, whom they described as an ally to US regime change efforts.
“This year’s Nobel Prize winner has not distanced herself from the interventions and the attacks we are seeing in the Caribbean, and we are stating that this clearly breaks with Alfred Nobel’s will," said Lina Alvarez Reyes, the information adviser for the Norwegian Solidarity Committee for Latin America, one of the groups that organized the protests.
Machado's daughter delivered a speech accepting the award on her behalf on Wednesday. The 58-year-old engineer was unable to attend the ceremony in person due to a decade-long travel ban imposed by Venezuelan authorities under the government of President Nicolás Maduro.
Via her daughter, Machado said that receiving the award "reminds the world that democracy is essential to peace... And more than anything, what we Venezuelans can offer the world is the lesson forged through this long and difficult journey: that to have a democracy, we must be willing to fight for freedom."
But the protesters who gathered outside the previous day argue that Machado—who dedicated her acceptance of the award in part to Trump and has reportedly worked behind the scenes to pressure Washington to ramp up military and financial pressure on Venezuela—is not a beacon of democracy, but a tool of imperialist control.
As Venezuelan-American activist Michelle Ellner wrote in Common Dreams in October after Machado received the award:
She worked hand in hand with Washington to justify regime change, using her platform to demand foreign military intervention to “liberate” Venezuela through force.
She cheered on Donald Trump’s threats of invasion and his naval deployments in the Caribbean, a show of force that risks igniting regional war under the pretext of “combating narco-trafficking.” While Trump sent warships and froze assets, Machado stood ready to serve as his local proxy, promising to deliver Venezuela’s sovereignty on a silver platter.
She pushed for the US sanctions that strangled the economy, knowing exactly who would pay the price: the poor, the sick, the working class.
The protesters outside the Nobel Institute on Tuesday felt similarly: "No peace prize for warmongers," read one banner. "US hands off Latin America," read another.
The protest came on the same day Trump told reporters that an attack on the mainland of Venezuela was coming soon: “We’re gonna hit ‘em on land very soon, too,” the president said after months of extrajudicial bombings of vessels in the Caribbean that the administration has alleged with scant evidence are carrying drugs.
On the same day that Machado received the award in absentia, US warplanes were seen circling over the Gulf of Venezuela. Later, in what Bloomberg described as a "serious escalation," the US seized an oil tanker off the nation's coast.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Francesca Albanese: Winner of the Lay Down Your Arms Award
An alternative to the Nobel Peace Prize honors those who truly align with Alfred Nobel's original will and celebrates their achievements.
Dec 10, 2025
The annual Nobel Peace Prize ceremony takes place on December 10 in Oslo, Norway. In a symbol of Western hypocrisy, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize was controversially awarded to María Corina Machado, the leader of Venezuela's hard-line right-wing opposition. Coupled with US President Donald Trump's contentious nomination and the awards' declining credibility, it's time we examine the merits and effectiveness of the once-prestigious award.
The late Fredrik S. Heffermehl, a Norwegian lawyer and author, long championed a critical examination of the Nobel Peace Prize and its alignment with Alfred Nobel's original will— "...the person who has done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations and for the abolition or reduction of standing armies as well as for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
In 2014, he established the Swedish peace organisation, Lay Down Your Arms, which fights against war and armaments, and annually honors a '"champion for peace." The 2025 recipient is United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese.
What Nobel Really Wanted
Criticisms of the Nobel Peace Prize have grown louder in recent years as politics seem to have hijacked the award's subjectivity. As if to exemplify this exact point, just take Trump's shameless campaign for the 2025 award.
As of 2021, only 33 recipients have qualified under Nobel's founding principles in the 120 years since its founding. The further the award has drifted from peace, the more it has lost its former prestige and, more importantly, its ability to foster long-lasting, sustainable peace.
If the Nobel Prize is losing its credibility, it also loses the impact it can have on world peace.
There are many instances in which laureates are champions of noble causes that, while commendable, are not directly aligned with peace but rather with human rights, democracy, the environment, or sustainability. In the worst cases, recipients were former war makers, and the prize was either politically motivated or awarded prematurely. Controversial Nobel Peace Prize laureates over the years include Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Yasser Arafat, Barack Obama, and Abiy Ahmed.
The increasing Eurocentricity is another point of debate, as a disproportionate number of laureates hail from Europe and North America. The award seems to support Western values and power structures over those from the Global South. Evidence of gender bias is also very apparent, as the peace efforts of women have historically been massively underrepresented. By 2025, only 16% of the individual Nobel Peace Prize recipients were women.
Nobel's wish was that his prizes go to those who have demonstrated the "greatest benefit on mankind." Nobel Peace laureates who stand out for their remarkable contributions to creating a more peaceful world include the International Committee of the Red Cross, Martin Luther King Jr., the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk, IPPNW, Campaign against Landmines and Jody Williams, Médecins Sans Frontières, United Nations and Kofi Annan, Martti Ahtisaari, ICAN, and Nihon Hidankyo.
The Lay Down Your Arms Peace Prize
Established in 2024, this alternative to the Nobel Peace Prize honors those who truly align with Alfred Nobel's original will and celebrates their achievements.
The first-ever recipient in 2024 was David Swanson. He is an American author, activist, and journalist, prominently known for his work in the anti-war movement with World Beyond War. He is the co-founder, executive director, and board member of this global organization dedicated to ending war and establishing just and sustainable peace.
Throughout the now two-year war, which has resulted in the death of more than 70,000 Palestinians, Albanese has been one of the most outspoken advocates for Palestinian rights.
This year, the award goes to Francesca Albanese, who "has forcefully and unwaveringly worked against Israel's full-scale war on the occupied Palestinian territories, in particular Israel's ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people."
Albanese has tirelessly pushed for nations to implement an embargo on arms sales to Israel, put an end to all trade agreements, ensure accountability for war crimes, and complete Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories. She highlights the world's responsibility to stop arming, funding, and profiting from Israel's atrocities in Gaza.
Throughout the now two-year war, which has resulted in the death of more than 70,000 Palestinians, Albanese has been one of the most outspoken advocates for Palestinian rights. The Israeli onslaught on Gaza has resulted in 2.2 million people enduring emergency levels of food insecurity and left more than 170,000 injured, many with life-changing wounds.
Fredrik S. Heffermehl
Heffermehl's advocacy for a return to Nobel's original criteria has sparked international debate. His work questioned whether political and commercial interests have skewed the selection process. By bringing greater transparency to the criteria and selection process, Heffermehl sought to ensure that the Nobel Peace Prize upholds both its founder's legacy and continues to serve as a meaningful catalyst for lasting global peace.
Summarized in his book, The Nobel Peace Prize: What Nobel Really Wanted, Heffermehl argued that the prize has frequently deviated from Nobel's original criteria to reward those dedicated to disarmament, demilitarization, peace negotiations, mediation, peace journalism, and conflict resolution.
In his career, he held respected positions as vice president of the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA). He also led the Norwegian Peace Council from 1985 to 2000, and authored multiple globally celebrated books on peace.
The Need for Reform
The Nobel Peace Prize has become a political prize and is too often given to champions of democracy, the environment, or human rights. In order to celebrate true champions of peace, we must return to Alfred Nobel's original intention for the prize.
Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee who are responsible for selecting Nobel Peace Prize laureates are selected by the Norwegian Parliament. More often than not, they are former politicians of major parties, or if not, they are closely associated with them. Let's not forget that Norway is a founding member of NATO and is closely associated with the EU and its ideologies.
This is not just about reputation and status; if the Nobel Prize is losing its credibility, it also loses the impact it can have on world peace. We must ensure that, first and foremost, lasting sustainable peace remains the primary goal of this prestigious award.
In the words of Fredrik Heffermehl, "Peace is not just a dream, but a possibility within our grasp."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How the Nobel Committee Weaponizes Peace Prize
The Nobel Peace Prize has long lost any credibility when it comes to upholding actual peace. With Machado’s award, it followed a recent tradition of aligning itself with a violent and repressive Western foreign policy.
Oct 26, 2025
The awarding of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to Venezuelan far-right leader María Corina Machado took nearly everyone by surprise (with the exception of insiders who apparently used advance knowledge to profit on betting markets—New York Times, 10/10/25).
The Nobel Committee justified the award on the basis of Machado’s “tireless work promoting democratic rights” and “her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” However, Machado’s track record paints a very different picture (Sovereign Media, 10/11/25; Venezuelanalysis, 7/8/24).
Rather than scrutinize the opposition politician’s credentials, the media establishment seized the opportunity to whitewash the most unpeaceful elements in her background in order to advance its cynical pro–regime change agenda targeting Venezuela’s socialist government (FAIR.org, 2/12/25, 1/11/23, 6/13/22, 4/15/20). Not coincidentally, Machado’s award coincided with an escalation of US military threats against Venezuela, meaning that corporate pundits used a “peace” prize as a platform for war propaganda.
Whitewashed profiles
The Nobel Prize meant corporate outlets had to give their readers an idea of Machado’s political trajectory. And though some had profile pieces (Reuters, 10/10/25; New York Times, 10/10/25), there was a concerted effort to conceal the most unsavory elements. The Financial Times (10/10/25) euphemistically stated that Machado “enter[ed] politics in opposition to Hugo Chávez”—president of Venezuela from 1999 through 2013—while the Guardian (10/10/25) summed up that she has been “involved in politics for more than two decades.”
No establishment outlet mentioned Machado’s first relevant political action: supporting the short-lived April 2002 coup against the Chávez government, and signing the infamous “Carmona Decree.” In one fell swoop, this decree did away with all democratically elected institutions, annulled the 1999 Constitution, and established a de facto dictatorship headed by the leader of Venezuela’s corporate business lobby. Machado later denied signing the decree, though her name appeared on a list published by Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional.
Looking past the undemocratic debut, establishment journalists instead started the story with the mid-2002 creation of Súmate, calling it an NGO dedicated to election monitoring or transparency (Bloomberg, 10/10/25; Washington Post, 10/10/25; Reuters, 10/10/25; New York Times, 10/10/25). Yet they did not mention that this alleged quest to safeguard democracy was funded by the US, or that the opposition made unfounded fraud claims after failing to unseat Chávez in a 2004 recall referendum (Venezuelanalysis, 8/21/04, 9/9/04).
Machado’s second act was also the antithesis of peace and democracy, as the opposition politician led the 2014 “La Salida” (“The Exit”) campaign of street violence to overthrow the Nicolás Maduro administration, leaving dozens dead. That same year, in order to denounce the Venezuelan government, she acted as an “alternate ambassador” for Panama at a meeting of the Organization of American States (BBC, 3/25/15). The stunt led to Machado losing her parliamentary seat.
Yet instead of scrutinizing the new laureate’s less-than-peaceful actions, corporate outlets chose to ignore or misrepresent them as “denouncing the regime’s abuses” (Washington Post, 10/10/25), “participating in anti-regime protests” (New York Times, 10/10/25) or “allegations she’d tried to foment a coup” (Bloomberg, 10/10/25). Only the Associated Press (10/10/25) offered a minimal concession that the Machado-led “anti-government protests…at times turned violent.”
Another key aspect of the opposition operator’s political career has been outspoken advocacy for US sanctions, which have caused economic devastation and led to tens of thousands of deaths (CEPR, 4/25/19). But Western media ignored Machado’s lobbying for collective punishment of the Venezuelan people—with the New York Times (10/16/25) a notable exception.
The US-backed figure has also made no secret of her plans to repress her political opponents. Machado is on the record making thinly veiled threats to “eradicate socialism,” and pledging to “neutralize” destabilizing groups should she eventually take power. Factoring in the Venezuelan far right’s history of racist violence (Venezuelanalysis, 3/28/14, 7/30/17), it is not unreasonable to predict a dirty war against Chavistas if Machado ever reached Miraflores.
The company you keep
The reporting on the Nobel Peace Prize plainly described Machado as belonging to the Venezuelan opposition, but few outlets bothered to disclose her political views, apart from euphemistically labeling her a “conservative” (New York Times, 10/10/25; Guardian, 10/10/25) or a supporter of “economic liberalism” (New York Times, 10/16/25; Reuters, 10/10/25).
Machado has heaped praise on far-right former presidents Álvaro Uribe of Colombia, who was responsible for serious human rights violations, and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, who tried to foment a coup.
In February, Machado sent a video message during a “Patriots for Europe” summit, calling for far-right leaders’ support and openly referring to them as “allies.” The high-profile gathering featured neo-fascist parties like Spain’s Vox, Italy’s Lega and France’s Rassemblement National (RN). The same media establishment that paints the likes of Hungary’s Viktor Orban as a threat to democracy (Guardian, 2/7/25; NPR, 4/22/25) chose to ignore Machado’s quite open alignment with his politics.
But more damning is the complete erasure of Machado’s outspoken support for Israel, even amidst the recent genocide. Venezuela’s far-right leader has repeatedly praised Israel’s defense of “Western values” and “freedom,” while her party established an alliance with Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud in 2020. In 2018, Machado penned a letter to the Israeli prime minister, asking him to lead a foreign intervention to “dismantle the criminal Venezuelan regime.”
At a time when the US/Israeli genocide in Palestine has sparked outrage around the world, no corporate outlet found it relevant to mention that this year’s “peace” laureate did not utter a single word of condemnation. On the contrary, according to Netanyahu himself, Machado told the prime minister she “appreciates” his “resolute” actions in a recent congratulatory phone call. Unsurprisingly, only Reuters (10/17/25) briefly reported on the Nobel laureate’s war criminal ally.
Beating the war drums
The media establishment’s careful whitewashing of Machado’s undemocratic past and genocidal allies is particularly damning, given the present context of a US military buildup and overt threats against Venezuela. One of the US-backed politician’s most persistent habits has been calling for a foreign intervention against her country (Sovereign Media, 10/11/25).
In the wake of her peace prize, Machado has wasted no time in lobbying for violent regime change. In a BBC interview (10/11/25), she argued that Venezuela needs to be “liberated” via a “coordination of internal and external forces,” an expression she also used in an interview with El País (10/10/25).
Borrowing a page from US administration’s book of redefining concepts such as “imminent threat” or “civilian,” Machado bombastically claimed that the Maduro government “has declared a war” against the Venezuelan people, and urged Trump to help her side “win” this war (BBC, 10/11/25; Infobae, 10/11/25; CNN, 10/15/25). The opposition leader has latched onto the administration’s “narcoterrorism” fairy tale that has been debunked over the years (FAIR.org, 9/24/19; Venezuelanalysis, 9/2/25), just like she supported the White House’s Tren de Aragua narrative, even if it meant a gruesome crackdown against Venezuelan migrants.
Machado has gone as far as to cheerlead the Trump administration extrajudicially executing her fellow citizens, arguing that the lethal US strikes in the Caribbean, which have killed at least 30 people, are “saving lives, not only Venezuelan lives, but also life of American people” (Daily Beast, 10/10/25).
But it is not just Machado using her new platform to promote US military intervention. The Washington Post editorial board (10/10/25) openly expressed that US interests would be “better served” with a “reliable American partner” like Machado. True to form, the Wall Street Journal (10/10/25, 10/12/25) also used Machado’s award to double down on calls for Trump to bomb Venezuela in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.”
The warmonger lineup was complete with the New York Times’ Bret Stephens (10/10/25), who never needs excuses to endorse the murder of Venezuelans in the name of US interests (FAIR.org, 2/12/25). In this case, Stephens claimed that regime change is the only option to address the “catastrophe of Chavismo,” even if it means “full-scale military confrontation.”
The Nobel Peace Prize has long lost any credibility when it comes to upholding actual peace. With Machado’s award, it followed a recent tradition of aligning itself with Western foreign policy. And even more predictable was the corporate media seizing the opportunity to advance its war and regime-change propaganda against Venezuela.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular