Coercive Peace: How Machado’s Nobel Prize Fuels Instability

Federico Canas Velasco | Latin America Fellow

Image sourced from Kevin Payravi via Wikimedia Commons.

The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado did not celebrate democracy; it sanctioned a new era of foreign intervention in Latin America. Machado, the face of democratic resistance in Venezuela, immediately dedicated the prize to President Donald Trump, a man who campaigned against Venezuelan migrants, actively lobbied for the same award, and is currently conducting military action in the Caribbean. This strategic move, while cementing an alliance with Trump, simultaneously reveals a troubling history of the Peace Prize being used as an instrument to influence Western soft power and advance geopolitical agendas.

The choice of awarding Machado links the Nobel’s moral authority with the endorsement and legitimisation of economic warfare and external force. By honouring a figure who champions intervention, the Nobel Committee has effectively resurrected a dangerous doctrine of coercive peace, a blueprint that guarantees future instability not just in Venezuela, but across all of Latin America.

The Neoliberal Instrument of Soft Power

The controversy surrounding María Corina Machado’s prize stems from the long-standing use of the Nobel as a mechanism for Western soft power. Historically, the prize has often overlooked figures who challenge Western dominance or power structures. Instead, it has functioned to amplify voices supporting liberal capitalism and a United States (US) led global order, hence legitimising transitions from non-aligned systems toward capitalist, market-friendly economies. This is clearly seen in the awards received by Lech Wałęsa and Mikhail Gorbachev during the Soviet bloc’s shift to capitalism.

This framework is currently being applied to Venezuela by transforming economic pain into a political objective. Machado’s platform is explicitly aligned with the neoliberal overhaul historically rewarded by the committee, promising to transition Venezuela from “the criminal hub of the Americas into the energy hub for the Americas." Her day one strategy promises a massive privatisation program projected to unlock a USD$.7 trillion investment opportunity.

The prize provides moral justification for the economic warfare used to achieve this goal. Machado openly champions broad-based sanctions, measures that the Lancet Global Health study shows to have resulted in devastating health costs for Venezuela. By honouring a figure who supports such measures, the Nobel committee reclassified economic collapses as a virtuous path to political transition. For Latin American nations, this is a dangerous precedent, as it normalises external economic pressure as a tool of statecraft, threatening the economic sovereignty of all nations in the region and ensuring that privatisation becomes the only viable economic exit.

The Humanitarian Trojan Horse

The second function of the Nobel Prize is to defend Western geopolitical interests by creating a security pretext for intervention. By cementing Machado’s status as the sole credible opposition voice, the award facilitates US efforts to secure direct control over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves and outmaneuver rivals like China and Russia.

To protect this interest, this prize lends credibility to the powerful tool of weaponised disinformation. Machado’s allies amplify debunked, Iraq-style narratives, specifically, the claim that the Venezuelan state controls narco-terrorist organisations like “Tren de Aragua.” This attempt to recast the domestic political crisis as a US national security threat is devastating for Latin America, creating an international justification for military action and ignoring the region’s pleas for non-intervention.

The combined effect is the direct violation of regional sovereignty. This powerful moral backing ensures that the pursuit of US energy security is packaged as a moral crusade. Progressive, democratic, and nationalist forces across the continent are united in their condemnation, making it clear that no difference with the Maduro government justifies a US military intervention, as such an attack would be a direct assault on the sovereignty of all of Latin America. The award, by backing this rhetoric, ensures that the political autonomy of all nations in the region is made conditional on their relationship with external geopolitical sponsors.

The Regional Dilemma

The Nobel Prize for Maria Corina Machado has not fostered regional unity against authoritarianism and has instead exposed a profound existential ideological divide. We must confront the reality that the award forces Latin America to choose between the ideals of democracy and the necessity of sovereignty. While the anti-democratic and authoritarian nature of the Maduro government should be denounced, we must simultaneously condemn the escalating US interventionism.

This is the central dilemma for sovereignty-focused forces across the continent. No differences with Maduro can justify a US military attack on Venezuelan soil, as such an action is a direct assault on the sovereignty of all Latin American nations. Such a move could pave the way for what Venezuelan researcher and writer, Luís Bonilla-Molina, calls a “Haitian situation”, a scenario designed to compel a fragile transitional leader to request foreign military occupation, providing a pretext to establish permanent bases and secure direct control over the country’s resources.

The primary threat to regional stability is no longer the recognisable violence of the 20th-century military golpe de estado. That era’s hard boot has been replaced by the soft, manipulative moral authority of humanitarian warfare. By honouring a figure who champions economic sanctions and relies on weaponsied disinformation, the Nobel committee has provided the ultimate moral seal of approval for this new interventionist doctrine, reclassifying geopolitical coercion as a moral crusade.

The Nobel Peace Prize will not bring stability to Venezuela. It has merely provided a moral license for the next phase of regional conflict, ensuring that the political autonomy of every nation is now conditioned by external approval.

Federico Canas Velasco is the Latin American Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs. He is completing his final year of a Bachelor of Arts and Advanced Studies in International and Global Studies at the University of Sydney, majoring in Spanish and Latin American Studies.

Born in Australia to Venezuelan parents, Federico's interest in Latin America stems from his proud heritage as well as his academic exploration of the region's cultural, political, and historical complexities. This interest was further enriched when he studied abroad at la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Federico looks forward to this Fellowship as an opportunity to combine his research interests with his personal experience to contribute meaningful analysis on Latin America's future amid shifting global dynamics.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Young Australians in International Affairs. All content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.