There are years when peace has no face — and this is one of them. The world is living through an age marked by conflicts spreading across continents, deepening social divisions, and leaders who use the word peace as a political disguise rather than a moral compass. In such a context, awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to anyone should be an act of the highest ethical responsibility. Yet this year, the prize granted to María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader, has sparked more questions than hope.

No one denies her personal courage or her role in Venezuela’s struggle for freedom. But the essential question remains: is a national cause enough to receive the planet’s most universal award? The Nobel Peace Prize was never meant for local conflicts. It was created to honor those who transcend borders and unite humanity through reconciliation — not confrontation.

If the criterion is “political resistance,” then why not recognize figures like Leopoldo López, who endured years of imprisonment for his beliefs? The message would have been more consistent if the distinction had rewarded genuine human sacrifice rather than media visibility. True peace is not measured by the number of speeches delivered, but by the depth of the wounds one seeks to heal.

Even more concerning is the ethical contradiction that arises from certain international alliances. A person who claims to stand for peace cannot align themselves with leaders like Donald Trump, who represent an authoritarian, divisive, and fear-driven vision of society. Peace cannot be built alongside those who glorify intolerance, nor can it coexist with those who turn it into political strategy. As Alfred Nobel wrote in his will, the prize must serve to “promote fraternity between nations.” That fraternity cannot be built on the noise of populism or the echo of nationalism.

This year’s decision leaves a bitter lesson: the Nobel Peace Prize has lost part of its moral weight and universal meaning. When the award becomes a symbolic gesture or a tool of political convenience, its essence fades away. It would have been wiser — and far more dignified — for the Nobel Committee to let the medal rest vacant, as a reminder that the world has yet to find its true peacemaker.

Because peace must not be distributed along political lines or national borders: peace belongs to everyone, or it belongs to no one.

“You cannot walk toward peace while holding hands with those who sow fear. Peace is not a flag to wave during campaigns — it is a commitment to all humanity.”

“History has never punished those who spoke with courage — only those who chose silence.”