The leader of the Venezuelan opposition was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for her struggle to achieve a democratic transition in the South American nation, winning recognition as a woman “who keeps the flame of democracy burning amid a growing darkness.”
Giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Machado makes a kind of sense if the goal is to make a statement against authoritarian rulers, but in the context of rising U.S.-Venezuelan tensions it is a very strange choice. As leader of the opposition in Venezuela, Machado has been cheering on Trump’s military buildup in the Caribbean and even praising his murderous boat attacks:
Tensions between Venezuela and America soared following the attack, but Machado insisted to The Sunday Times that Trump was right to bomb the boat.
“I totally support his strategy,” Machado said. “And I’ve said on behalf of the Venezuelan people that we are very grateful. I think it is the right thing to do. It’s courageous. It’s visionary.”
Trump will be angry that he was denied the prize that he so desperately craved, but he can take some satisfaction from the fact that the award went to someone who praises him like this. Now he will be able to say that his despicable Venezuela policy has the endorsement of a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Trump could very well escalate and start a war against Venezuela, and he could say he is doing it with Machado’s blessing. In that sense, awarding her this prize could be making a new war slightly more likely than it already is.
According to Nobel’s will, the Peace Prize was originally supposed to be given to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Since then, it has often been awarded to individuals and groups that don’t fit that exact descritpion. Even so, it is difficult to see how Machado has done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations when she is publicly applauding U.S. military attacks on her countrymen. The committee’s assertion that she “meets all three criteria stated in Alfred Nobel’s will for the selection of a Peace Prize laureate” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Machado’s praise for Trump’s policy is bizarre. How is it courageous to blow up a boat filled with civilians? How can murdering these people be the right thing to do? What could possibly be visionary about summarily executing people with drone strikes? Her interviewer from the Times was incredulous and pressed her on this question:
But attacking a speedboat? Killing 11 citizens? “I’m in favour of the US dismantling this criminal structure.”
Machado probably doesn’t believe what she is saying, but that doesn’t make it any better. Her response is deeply cynical. She can’t possibly believe that murdering poor men on speedboats will “dismantle” anything, but she is willing to endorse these murders because it buys her goodwill from Trump. She is flattering Trump in the hopes that he will launch more illegal attacks to destabilize the Venezuelan government. In other words, Machado is agitating for some kind of U.S. intervention that will get many more Venezuelans and possibly some Americans killed.
It is understandable that Machado wants U.S. pressure on Maduro to force him from power, but endorsing Trump’s militarized approach is a serious mistake that will only bring more harm to the people of Venezuela. When the Venezuelan opposition has worked closely with the U.S. in the past, it has not gone well for them or their country. Relying on U.S. military action in one form or another to pursue regime change will likely backfire on the opposition and it will definitely hurt the people of Venezuela.
The committee claims that Machado “has been steadfast in her support for a peaceful transition to democracy,” but that can’t be squared with her recent support for Trump’s murderous attacks on Venezuelan boats. There must have been other individuals or organizations more deserving of this award. If the goal was to embarrass Trump or deliver him a rebuke, the committee clearly didn’t think this one all the way through.