“Nobel Peace” and the Venezuelan War That Did Not Take Place
by Daniel Rankin
On Saturday the 3rd of January American forces peacefully removed the president of Venezuela from office and brought him to the United States to face drug charges. Three months earlier, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citing the keeping of “the flame of democracy burning amidst a growing darkness”, announced the awarding of Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado the Nobel Peace Prize, which she was awarded on the10th December.
The Nobel Peace (and the Nobel in general) Prize has a convoluted history. Famously, Alfred Nobel regretted being known so much for his invention of a destructive substance – dynamite – such that he left in his will the desire to have an internationally prestigious award across five disciplines. The Nobel Committee describe the criteria for a winner of the prize of Peace as one who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.
The Peace Prize has been variously awarded to the International Committee of the Red Cross (3 times), Henry Kissinger, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, and our own Hume and Trimble. It was on Thurs 15th Jan that the prize unofficially switched hands. For the second time since Norwegian laureate in Literature Knut Hamsun’s delivery to Joseph Goebbels in 1943, the prize was gifted to another individual for political reasons. That recipient was Donald Trump.
What is in the word “peace”? Operation Absolute Resolve saw just over 50 soldiers and a mere two civilians dead during the capture of Maduro. Unlike disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is evident that Trump is not in the business of nation-building so long as there is co-operation. Like Monroe he states his intentions clearly; “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again”. The principle is not democracy but compliance, and thus term “peace” moves from the former to the latter meaning with Corina Machado’s gifting. Trump is content with working with a more stable and extractive version of the decapitated Venezuelan dictatorship.
The removal of Maduro has not stoked a war. It has been relatively peaceful (contrasted with Iran), and opens the bountiful oil industry to enormous opportunities. Venezuela’s proven oil reserves are the largest in the world, yet they are 22nd in the world for oil exports, and significantly lacking in efficient production due to severe government inefficiency. Trump has asked for $100bn for oil industry spending in Venezuela, but Exxon head Darren Woods said “We have had our assets seized there twice… today it’s uninvestable”. It’s not hard to see that future compliance with American capital is the primary issue, not democracy.
“Having a Venezuela that’s an oil producer is good for the United States because it keeps the price of oil down.” – Trump. That is the impetus of this peace. This peace is cruel and undemocratic. It is only when there is resistance that there is conflict, and that includes resistance to tyranny. So Trump’s Absolute Resolve, so long as there is neither resistance by the succeeding Venezuelan government under Delcy Rodríguez, nor escalated resistance of the Venezuelan people rightfully protesting perpetual dictatorship, is in fact deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize.
If you’ve seen Werner Herzog’s Lessons of Darkness (1992) documenting oil fires during the Gulf War, you’ll find the sheer beauty and genuine solace in oil extraction. Amidst the plethora of fire, the alien-like narrator asks: “Has life without fire become unbearable for them?” But then the peaceful firefighters arrive: “Now they are content. Now there is something to extinguish again”. Trump is that firefighter; in receiving a Nobel Peace Prize gift, he extinguishes any remaining flame of democracy.
