Should Colombian President Santos Decline the Nobel Peace Prize?

Should Colombian President Santos Decline the Nobel Peace Prize?

Should Colombian President Santos Decline the Nobel Peace Prize?

That’s what Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho did in 1973. Whatever Santos does, let’s hope he uses the award to advance the cause of peace.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today for his efforts to negotiate an end to 52 years of civil war between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In light of last Sunday’s national referendum, in which the peace accord was turned down by a slim margin, the Nobel committee’s decision comes as a serious rebuke to Santos’s opposition, a group that includes ignoble former president Álvaro Uribe as well as Human Rights Watch.

In spite of the hurdles that were against him, one wonders why the Nobel committee saw fit to award the prize solely to Santos and not to FARC leaders Timoleón Jiménez or Rodrigo Londoño, or even the victims of the war? This is particularly surprising, as there is a long precedent of handing out the peace prize as a joint affair: In 1973, Henry Kissinger shared the award with Vietnam’s Le Duc Tho for supporting the Paris Peace Accords, the deal that ostensibly brought a cease-fire to the Vietnam War; in 1978, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin received the award for agreeing to the Camp David Accords; and in 1994, Yasir Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres received it for the previous year’s Oslo Accords.

Implicit in awarding the medal to Santos alone is the acknowledgment that he faced more formidable hurdles than anyone else; in an odd way, this is also a backhanded compliment to the FARC, since—unlike the Colombian military and the country’s right-wing paramilitaries—the rebels didn’t have to be corralled into agreeing to peace; they were eager for it. 

Now the most pertinent question is, what will Santos do next? He could follow the example of Le Duc Tho, who declined the laurel on the grounds that “peace has not yet really been established.” Whatever Santos chooses to do, let’s hope he will use this sudden boon to truly drive peace home. 

We cannot back down

We now confront a second Trump presidency.

There’s not a moment to lose. We must harness our fears, our grief, and yes, our anger, to resist the dangerous policies Donald Trump will unleash on our country. We rededicate ourselves to our role as journalists and writers of principle and conscience.

Today, we also steel ourselves for the fight ahead. It will demand a fearless spirit, an informed mind, wise analysis, and humane resistance. We face the enactment of Project 2025, a far-right supreme court, political authoritarianism, increasing inequality and record homelessness, a looming climate crisis, and conflicts abroad. The Nation will expose and propose, nurture investigative reporting, and stand together as a community to keep hope and possibility alive. The Nation’s work will continue—as it has in good and not-so-good times—to develop alternative ideas and visions, to deepen our mission of truth-telling and deep reporting, and to further solidarity in a nation divided.

Armed with a remarkable 160 years of bold, independent journalism, our mandate today remains the same as when abolitionists first founded The Nation—to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, serve as a beacon through the darkest days of resistance, and to envision and struggle for a brighter future.

The day is dark, the forces arrayed are tenacious, but as the late Nation editorial board member Toni Morrison wrote “No! This is precisely the time when artists go to work. There is no time for despair, no place for self-pity, no need for silence, no room for fear. We speak, we write, we do language. That is how civilizations heal.”

I urge you to stand with The Nation and donate today.

Onwards,

Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x