Nobel ‘Peace’ Committee – A Prize for US Military Regime Change
NOBEL LAUREATES, 13 Oct 2025
Transnational Foundation – TRANSCEND Media Service
The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize Rewards Militarism, Defies Alfred Nobel’s Will
10 Oct 2025 — The board of the Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research (TFF) strongly condemns the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Venezuelan opposition figure María Corina Machado. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has once again violated Alfred Nobel’s original mandate by honouring a figure who openly advocates foreign military intervention.
In a CBS News interview, Machado declared:
“The only way to stop the suppression is by force—U.S. force.”
She has also appealed directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, asking him to use “force and influence” to help dismantle Venezuela’s government—a move documented in her 2018 letter and widely circulated among peace researchers.
In CNN-aligned reporting, Machado praised U.S. naval deployments off Venezuela’s coast and described the Maduro government as a “criminal organization” threatening regional stability. She warned military leaders:
“Either they sink with Maduro and his criminal system, or they contribute to saving Venezuela and save themselves as well.” 🔗 CiberCuba coverage
What Nobel Actually Intended
Alfred Nobel’s will, signed in 1895, defines that his peace prize shall go to work:
“…the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
Machado’s record violates all three – while the Committee chairman twisted it beyond recognition to make it look like Ms Machado was relevant. Her calls for foreign military pressure, silence on the humanitarian impact of sanctions, and alignment with interventionist agendas stand in stark contradiction to Nobel’s vision.
Militarising Ourselves to Death
Global military expenditures are rising faster than at any point since 1945. Europe now invests more in weapons than in anything else. The Trump regime openly proposes military deployment to suppress domestic dissent. We are, de facto, militarising ourselves to death.
In this perilous moment, the Nobel Committee rewards someone who calls for military force. It deliberately ignores Nobel’s intent to reduce war and militarism.
From Laureates to Lobbyists
Machado joins a troubling lineage of laureates whose actions contradict the spirit of peace: Kissinger, Obama, the EU, and the Ukrainian human rights activists who advocated for more weapons imports.
Each award diluted the meaning of peace, replacing it with strategic symbolism and, as usual and without exception, aligned with US/NATO interests.
A Prize in Crisis – Time for an international legal investigation
The Nobel Peace Prize was meant to uplift those dismantling the machinery of war—not those seeking to recalibrate it. By honouring Machado, the Committee sends a dangerous message: that peace can be pursued through coercion, that sovereignty is negotiable, and that militarised resistance is worthy of global acclaim.
This year’s award is not just a misstep. It is a betrayal.
TFF calls for an independent legal investigation into the Nobel Committee’s repeated violations of its mandate. The Committee must be held accountable—and its work suspended until a verdict is reached.
Peace cannot be entrusted to those who confuse force with fraternity.
PS1 The Lay Down Your Arms Foundation has just awarded its true-peace prize aligned with Nobel’s spirit and words to UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories to Francesca Albanese. But that does not get anything like the media attention this peace-betraying Committee does. You guess why…
PS2 A longer version of this with more details is available here.
Go to Original – thetransnational.substack.com
Tags: Anti-militarism, Demilitarization, Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel's Will
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
One Response to “Nobel ‘Peace’ Committee – A Prize for US Military Regime Change”
Write a comment to Nick Marconi
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.
I fully agree with Mr Oberg’s observations on the contradiction between using force to promote peace with respect to the recent endorsement of Maria Corina Machado by the NNB for the Peace Prize. But agreement only aids deeper understanding. Unfortunately, today we operate with a “war-like” politics. Ultimately, the kind of “peace” our leaders seem to feel most comfortable with is a peace with “teeth”; “peace through strength”. It’s an arms-length strategy. The kind of peace that Oberg envisions, I suppose, would be one, that maximises trust through mutual support. But, what comes first? If we believe that history can teach us about how to develop policy governing relations between states, then all we have to do is point to the Second War World, the so called “good war”, as exemplar par excellence. But, I don’t think we can learn from history. All we can do is mine historical facts, for those that fit our already preconceived views. Trust and mutual support emerge together; the peace that would be achieved is much harder to realize than the one that now prevails within our cognitive field of view, a “peace” with the option of dominating the political arena. This is what we must change!