The real-world impact of the Nobel Peace Prize

Among much pomp and ceremony, the Nobel Peace Prize will be jointly awarded to Ukraine’s Centre for Civil Liberties, Belarusian human rights campaigner Ales Bialiatski, and the Russian human rights organization Memorial on Saturday in Oslo, Norway. While much criticized, it remains one of the most prestigious awards in the world, bestowing a near-legendary status among its laureates. Deciding who deserves it is a “perennial challenge for [the] Nobel Committee,” according to Henrik Urdal, director at Peace Research Institute Oslo. “If they want the prize to be relevant it cannot only be for processes that are sealed and done but it has to be for processes that are also ongoing … to be a nudge in the right direction.” So what does that nudge look like in practice? A successful — if controversial — example repeatedly cited to Devex was the 2016 award given to former Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos. The prize was granted after he clinched a end to five decades of war with leftist rebels from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC. But a national referendum failed to approve the peace agreement, causing a gaping divide in the nation that continues today, but the prize is viewed by many, including Santos, as instrumental in helping to push through an amended peace deal. But there’s a flipside. Bestowing the award to ongoing peace processes can be done “too early” and “there will always be a risk that the process derails,” said Urdal. “There is also a very real possibility that prizes can fail in achieving what they aim to do.” Mistakes in hindsight The case of Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali is often cited in this case. He was awarded the prize in 2019 “for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea,” according to the committee. But the war in northern Ethiopia, which has raged for two years, has led to calls for the committee to strip him of the award, though that’s not permitted by the prize’s rules. Under his regime, the flow of humanitarian aid has been severed from the Tigray region — completely at times and at other times allowed to only trickle in — causing widespread malnutrition and lack of access to health care. The government has also been accused of blocking a famine declaration. Eritrean troops have fought alongside the government's army and have reportedly continued to kill civilians despite a peace deal signed in November. Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the prize in 1991 “for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights,” but has since become an international pariah for defending a genocide against the country’s Rohingya minority. “There was a hope of encouraging the [peace] process in Ethiopia, and the development was contrary to it, as we all know, and that is regrettable,” Berit Reiss-Andersen, chair of the Nobel committee, told Devex. “I don’t accept [general] criticism” that the peace prize comes too early, she said. “I think the importance of the peace prize is very often that it comes early and gives an encouragement that really makes a difference. … That is sometimes taking a risk, and we are willing to take that risk, and it’s exactly that willingness that I believe has made the peace prize so relevant.” Alongside Santos, Reiss-Andersen said she had been told by 1983 winner, Lech Wałęsa, leader of Solidarity, Poland’s democratic movement, that the prize was awarded “at a point where they were absolutely low and it revitalized the process.” The award itself also provides a platform for laureates “to speak up for issues that will not otherwise have the world's attention,” said Reiss-Andersen. While awarding “prizes in domains that are controversial or remain unsettled” was sometimes necessary to keep the Nobel relevant, Urdal agreed that the “reality is that this is [a] prize that is getting global attention and certainly something that is a powerful tool, including using previous laureates in order to engage in conflicts, through this group of Elders.” The diplomacy factor The Elders, a group of former dignitaries now engaged in advocacy, have counted seven Nobel Prize winners among their ranks at various times, according to the organization’s chief executive Alistair Fernie. He told Devex there was a network among the laureates — which was confirmed by Reiss-Andersen — and that this could “create opportunities.” “Obviously some people would say the prize has been compromised to some extent by the behavior of previous winners,” Fernie said, noting that “through the Nobel network, … we’ve been able to have a conversation with [Abiy].” But more important than the status bestowed by the prize was what the winners had actually done to earn it, according to Fernie. The Elders get a “lot of interest” in how Santos negotiated the peace deal in Colombia — including from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who met with Santos in August, along with former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. “While every situation is unique, there are some generalizable lessons about bringing civil war in a country to an end, which he is very good at drawing out from his own personal experience and making relevant to other contexts,” said Fernie. He added that Zelenskyy “asked a lot of questions” of Santos about fighting a war and thinking about peace simultaneously. What happened in Colombia But within Colombia, the prize bestowed to Santos, and the peace process it encouraged, have been more controversial. Santos promised a simple yes-no referendum on the 2016 accord, hammered out over more than three years, mostly in Havana, Cuba. It was expected to be approved easily by Colombians weary of decades of war. But the “no” lobby, led by former right-wing President Álvaro Uribe, won the day, arguing that the deal was far too lenient on the rebels. “After the plebiscite failed there was a big sentiment of anguish and … despair,” said Sergio Guzmán, director of Colombia Risk Analysis in Bogotá. “The peace prize really gave Santos an extra oomph to stick with the agreement and to see it through in congress come what may.” Some of Santos’ political opponents, many of them Uribe supporters, make the “absurd” claim he bought the prize, said Guzmán. Reiss-Andersen said she’s never heard of the committee being bribed, but it does “avoid all of those things” like event invitations where a “hotel is too fancy, [or] first class tickets.” For the so-called Uribistas, this “was something that affected their perspective on the Prize, on the committee” said Guzmán, but added they were already “dead set against Santos” and refused to renegotiate on or support the peace agreement. The peace deal — which saw FARC agree to demobilize — is a complex web of agreements encompassing, across about 300 pages, broad sections on rural development, illegal drugs, and reconciliation. But the main bugbear for critics of the deal was that FARC leaders would not be jailed, but instead receive seats in the Colombian Congress. Many aspects require concerted governance efforts that have not been met, undermining the stability of the deal securing peace in the country. The government was also “delayed” in filling power vacuums left by the deal, according to Guzmán, and campaigns of violence were carried out against FARC signatories and social leaders. Many FARC leaders refused to sign the deal and set up a new faction that continues to operate in Colombia and Venezuela. “The peace deal and the Nobel Prize gave Santos international pomp and flair that made him less interested in resolving the intricacies and subtleties [of] Colombia’s conflict,” said Guzmán. From mid-2017, “he was less involved in seeing the nuts and bolts agreement and much more involved in selling the model of Colombian peace,” he added. Disappointment in Tunisia The 2015 award went to Tunisia’s National Dialogue Quartet “for its decisive contribution to the building of a pluralistic democracy” after 2011’s Jasmine Revolution, which sparked the Arab Spring. The quartet was made up of four groups from different parts of society: the Tunisian Human Rights League, or LTDH; the Tunisian General Labour Union; the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts, or UTICA; and the Tunisian Order of Lawyers, or ONAT. Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow in Carnegie’s Middle East Program, explained that the quartet’s efforts to move the democratic process forward “basically allowed parliament to come to a consensus on the constitution.” But the prize was much less influential in Tunisia, as by 2015, the quartet was “pretty much done with their work,” said Yerkes. For the LTDH, receiving the prize has not brought about any major changes, other than being more respected by international organizations, according to LTDH Vice President Najet Zammouri. Democracy in Tunisia has once again deteriorated, and the LTDH’s laureate status has caused them complications in their relationship with the country’s ruler, Kais Saied, who, after a 2021 self-coup, reversed a decade’s worth of democratic gains, according to Yerkes. Saied “wants to use [LTDH] to have this credibility in international public opinion [saying] the Nobel Peace Prize laureate is with us,” according to Zammouri. But despite Saied telling the media otherwise, the LTDH “told him we don’t agree with his constitution so can’t participate in your dialogue.” The group is boycotting Tunisia’s elections, slated for Dec. 17. As for this year’s winners, the way the committee “combined these different civil society initiatives was a quite smart solution to the challenge of finding relevant and important contributions in both Ukraine, Belarus and Russia,” said Urdal. He agreed with the sentiment of a colleague that all three countries must collaborate for there to be stable peace in Europe. Update, Dec. 9, 2022: This story has updated the number of Nobel Prize winners who have been members of The Elders at various points in time.