By Mariam Jooma Çarikci
The Nobel Prize is a big deal. It is what Gen Z would call the GOAT award for outstanding achievement in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, and Peace. Since its inception in 1901, Alfred Nobel’s gift to the world is a symbol of hope for a better world, honoring the best of science, art, and diplomacy as instruments for meaningful change. In South Africa, the prize has also brought tourism benefits, as the iconic Vilakazi Street in Soweto is the only street in the world to have housed two Nobel Peace Laureates: Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela.
One of the more contentious debates surrounding the Nobel Peace Prize is the recognition of individuals whose actions or political stances have been associated with war, conflict, or human rights violations. Perhaps the most famous example is the selection of Henry Kissinger in 1973. The U.S. Secretary of State was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in negotiating a ceasefire during the Vietnam War. Yet Kissinger’s tenure is also linked to controversial military actions, including the illegal bombing campaigns in Cambodia and Laos, as well as U.S. support for authoritarian regimes in Latin America.
Similarly, U.S. President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, less than one year into his presidency. Despite this symbolic and hopeful recognition of his potential for peace, Obama not only continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but dramatically expanded drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The celebration of the global south’s ally in the White House as the first African-American President was short-lived. Both Kissinger and Obama’s leadership challenge the very notion of “peace” that the Nobel Peace Prize embodies.
In just over a week’s time, some 40 kilometers from Vilakazi Street, the Sandton Convention Centre will host another Nobel Peace Laureate, prominent American Filipino journalist Maria Ressa. She will be speaking as the chairperson of the World Movement for Democracy (WMD) Steering Committee at their 12th Global Assembly, which runs from November 20-22. Ressa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2021 for her ongoing coverage of the Duterte regime’s use of extrajudicial means of punishing warlords in the Philippines.
As the co-founder of Rappler, a Philippines-based news outlet, she has faced legal battles and threats from the Duterte regime.
The aptly abbreviated WMD is funded in large part by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which for all intents and purposes is the civilian arm of the CIA’s regime-change policy. According to its website, the WMD “founded in 1999, is a community of action comprised of individuals and organizations working together to catalyze political and public support for democracy around the world.”
The NED is banned in China and Russia, while its work in Venezuela is restricted after the government accused it of supporting opposition movements.
Rappler receives funding from the NED, and Ressa is a regular speaker at media freedom events championing the cause of free press.
The Philippines, the CIA, and Neo-colonialism
Maria Ressa’s experience as a reporter with CNN has positioned her as a mainstream quasi-expert on terrorism in Southeast Asia. Her book, ‘The Seeds of Terrorism’, published in 2011, follows the “Al-Qaeda” trail in the Philippines and Indonesia and is offered as a warning bell on the expansion of “fundamentalist groups” in the region. Her analysis is devoid of the context of U.S. involvement in creating puppet regimes in those countries. The extract below encapsulates what much of the book is about: the fear of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as an almost psychological pathology.
“During times of sweeping change, people look for meaning, creating boom times for religion. Radical Islam in Southeast Asia was growing by leaps and bounds, spurred by the oil boom of the early 1970s. After the price of oil quadrupled, Saudi Arabia poured massive amounts of cash into Southeast Asia, building mosques and religious schools and spreading the austere version of Wahhabi Islam. That was followed by the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979, a revolution that had a profound effect on Muslims’ belief in Islam as a form of political power. Finally, there was jihad, the first modern holy war, in 1989. The call to jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan was highly appealing in Southeast Asia. In the Philippines alone, more than one thousand Muslims made the trip.”
Ressa sees the overthrow of the brutal regime of Reza Pahlavi in religious terms. What the Shah represented was all that was corrupting and culturally alienating for most Iranians. Oil revenue had made a class of Iranians extremely wealthy, while secularization along Western lines left many feeling invisible to the new ruling elite. The special forces, or SAVAK, were notorious for their ruthless suppression of any opposition to their Western-oriented reforms. Not only was the Shah working against the interests of the Iranian people, but he was also actively working to limit indigenous alternatives to his program.
Ressa seems willfully oblivious to the fact that Islam as a political power had dominated the Middle East and parts of Eastern and Western Europe for 600 years under the Ottomans. The 1979 revolution was not the first wake-up call to the idea of political power organized according to consensual cultural and ethical principles. But it is the final line of the extract above that truly highlights her journalistic mediocrity, looking at history purely through post-9/11 lenses.
It is a well-known fact that the Mujahideen were aided and funded by the U.S. as a strategy of keeping the Soviets out of the region. If there was any holy war, it was instigated by the U.S. administration under George W. Bush.
Duterte’s Anti-U.S. Stance
Within the context of the Philippines, it is not insignificant that Duterte, the main target of Ressa’s advocacy/journalism, is also vocally anti-U.S. He has been quoted on numerous occasions as essentially giving the U.S. the middle finger and refusing to play the role of a complacent U.S. lackey, as most regimes before him happily did. Indeed, it is noteworthy that since its inception in 1947, the CIA has always had a significant role in the Philippines— the location of its Southeast Asia operations headquarters and the site of two U.S. military bases.
Ressa would know that the CIA was instrumental in suppressing the Hukbalahap guerrilla movement that began as a popular opposition to Japanese occupation in the Philippines but later brought peasants and the economically disenfranchised into a united group against the government. U.S. trade policy has directly impacted local peasants, who could no longer grow crops for consumption but were incentivized to plant crops like tobacco and sugar cane for export to the U.S. With the disruption of the agricultural pattern, the tradition of communal living was broken, creating a new divide between rich landowners and impoverished farm workers.
Importantly, the Huk guerrillas offered a ceasefire conditional on the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Philippines, the cancellation of military base agreements, and the return of trade parity. Their demands were rejected and ultimately neutralized by the co-option of leaders corrupted by the promise of U.S. dollars.
The U.S. used its experience of breaking indigenous opposition to their presence in the Philippines as an example for later interventions around the globe. Indeed, the Philippines encapsulates the ultimate in U.S.-client relations that monstrously echo to varying degrees, in much of the global South.
Free Speech for All Except Palestinians
Ressa has openly expressed support for Israel in the context of its ongoing genocide in Gaza, tweeting that:
“Chants like ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ are commonly perceived as calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel.”
And:
“Condemnation of the Oct. 7 massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas — and calling it out as an act of terrorism — shouldn’t be avoided out of risk of offending Palestinians and their supporters. Not condemning the terrorist attacks is a failure of a moral core, and by no means should condemnation of terrorism be viewed as incompatible with believing in Palestinian rights and statehood, alongside Israel.”
The tone-deaf tweets do little to suggest her status as an award-winning journalist and a Nobel laureate. What they do is simply reflect the views of the powerful, stripping away at the very meaning of the words ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’.
Ressa’s comments should sound the alarm bells for anyone who considers themselves a social justice advocate, particularly among Palestinian activists, human rights organizations, and those critical of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. Her position aligns her with a broader pro-Western, pro-Israel narrative that has been a point of contention for many in the global South, who are witness to the daily genocidal murder of Palestinian children, women, and elderly. While Israeli occupation is destabilizing the whole region, Ressa has positioned herself as an advocate for Israel’s right to self-defense, as consistently parroted by the genocidal regime.
This position is devoid of the broader context of the colonial land grab, including Israel’s military actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and its long-standing occupation of Palestinian territories, in Gaza and the West Bank, which the United Nations and human rights organizations (including Israeli organizations) consider violations of international law.
Ressa’s support for Israel, particularly when framed as a defense of “democracy” in the Middle East, is deeply problematic, given Israel’s ethnic cleansing and annihilation of an entire people. Ressa’s position on Israel is irreconcilable with her broader narrative of standing up for marginalized voices and holding powerful regimes accountable. Her support for Israel raises uncomfortable questions about her political alignment and directly conflicts with the values of peace and justice that the Nobel Peace Prize is supposed to honor.
The Ethics of War and Peace
The Nobel Peace Prize, by its very nature, reflects the complex interplay between ideals and realities. What it cannot be is an opaque celebration of middle-of-the-road positions on the value of all human life — including Palestinian life.
The question becomes whether one can truly champion peace and human rights while endorsing policies that are part of a wider system of oppression and violence. Can someone who defends the rights of journalists in one country support a government that has killed some 150 journalists over the course of one year in another?
Can an individual like Maria Ressa, who defends press freedom and speaks truth to power in the Philippines, also be a force for peace when her views align with contentious global powers? The Nobel Peace Prize must better reflect ethics that have no sponsor except the truth if it is to remain an award worth acknowledging.
Mariam Jooma Çarikci is an author and researcher at the Media Review Network. She focuses on issues affecting the media, Türkiye and the Horn of Africa.
- The Privilege of Forgetting: Gaza and post-Apartheid South Africa - November 28, 2024
- Israel is turning up the smokescreen to obscure the ICC’s warrant for Netanyahu - November 25, 2024
- The Revolution Will Not Be Funded - November 18, 2024