Dehai News

Peace Prize and the Case for Revocation: Why Abiy Ahmed’s Award Stands Apart

By Asgede Hagos*^

The Nobel Peace Prize has long stood as one of the most prestigious honors in the world, its recipients elevated as moral exemplars of humanity’s highest aspirations. Since its inception in 1901, the prize has rewarded those who, through negotiation, activism, or sacrifice, contributed to reducing armed conflict and advancing human dignity. Yet for all its nobility and illustrious reputation, the Nobel Prize Committee has frequently faced criticism the way it selects and maintains its laureates. Two shortcomings stand out above all others: first, the tendency to award prematurely, often based on limited data or a single peace initiative; and second, the Committee’s refusal to rescind awards, even when subsequent evidence exposes a laureate as having betrayed the very principles for which they were honored.

The Peace Prize can indeed serve as a force for good when awarded with discernment, as in the case of Nelson Mandela, whose lifelong struggle against apartheid and pursuit of reconciliation embodies its highest ideals. But when misjudged, the award risks legitimizing the very opposite of peace.

Few examples if any highlight this danger as starkly as Ethiopia’s current Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed . Honored in 2019 for his peace initiative with Eritrea, Abiy has since undone that very peace, returning the Horn of Africa to cycles of war, devastation, and mistrust. The uniqueness of his case rests precisely here: Abiy did not merely fail to live up to the lofty goals of the Nobel Prize; he has actively subverted the achievement—the rapprochement with Eritrea—for which he was specifically recognized. No other laureate has so directly invalidated the grounds of their own award. For this reason, his case raises an unprecedented moral and institutional dilemma: whether the Nobel Committee can continue to uphold its credibility without rescinding his prize.

*****
Criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize is hardly new. Over its long history, the award has been conferred upon figures whose subsequent actions cast shadows on their legacy. Yet in nearly all these cases, the controversy stems from whether the laureate’s later conduct lived up to the ideals of peace—not whether they betrayed the very peace agreement that secured their award.

Kissinger remains one of the most contested laureates. Awarded the Nobel for negotiating the Paris Peace Accords, he was simultaneously complicit in prolonging the Vietnam War, overseeing the secret bombing of Cambodia, and supporting repressive regimes abroad. Critics have long argued that he embodied realpolitik rather than peace. Still, the committee recognized a concrete outcome: a negotiated end to direct U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. However cynical the circumstances, the award at least rested on an identifiable achievement.

In 1991, Aung San Suu Kyi symbolized the global struggle for democracy, having endured years of house arrest under Myanmar’s military junta. Her later fall from grace, marked by her defense of the military’s campaign against the Rohingya minority, horrified former supporters. Yet her award was for personal sacrifice and resistance to dictatorship, which remained factual. The tragedy lay in her transformation, not in the absence of genuine merit at the time of recognition.

Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin shared the 1994 Peace Prize for their role in negotiating the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinians. The peace process collapsed into renewed violence, and the legacy of Oslo is bitterly disputed. Still, the accords were a genuine diplomatic breakthrough, however fragile. The failure lay in the inability to sustain momentum, not in the absence of an achievement.

Perhaps the clearest case of premature optimism, Barack Obama was awarded the Peace Prize less than a year into his presidency. The Committee cited his vision of a nuclear-free world and his commitment to multilateralism. Critics pointed out that the award was anticipatory, recognizing intentions rather than results. Obama himself admitted he did not yet deserve it. Later, his continuation of drone warfare and limited foreign policy breakthroughs deepened the sense of irony. Still, the award rested on rhetorical leadership and symbolic change, not on a single, measurable peace initiative later undone.

By contrast, Abiy Ahmed’s Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 rested on one central act: brokering peace with Eritrea after decades of hostility. His accession to office in 2018 and his outreach to Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki were hailed worldwide as transformative, promising to turn a long-standing “no war, no peace” stalemate into lasting reconciliation. The Nobel Committee emphasized this singular initiative in its citation, celebrating Abiy’s “decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea.”

Unlike other laureates who received recognition for years of activism, protracted negotiations, or transformative movements, Abiy’s award was anchored almost entirely in one moment—his handshake across the border. The Committee made a gamble: that this gesture would inaugurate a durable new order in the Horn of Africa.
The gamble has not paid off. Rather than institutionalizing peace, Abiy’s subsequent years in office have been marked by wars in his country--in Tigray, Oromia, and Amhara regions--and by renewed hostility with Eritrea. The “peace agreement” for which he was honored has been hollowed out, replaced by alliances of convenience, betrayals, and now preparations for possible renewed conflict.

What makes Abiy’s case unprecedented is not simply that he failed to live up to Nobel ideals, but that he actively reversed the very achievement that justified his award.

Three aspects make Abiy’s case unprecedented:

• Direct Subversion of the Awarded Peace:
  Abiy was recognized for ending hostility with Eritrea. Today, his government’s actions threaten a return to war with that same neighbor. No other laureate has so directly negated the grounds of their award.

• Instrumentalization of the Prize:
  The Nobel Prize gave Abiy international legitimacy at a moment when he was consolidating power at home. He leveraged the award to project himself as a reformer, even as he prepared for centralization and repression. This instrumental use of the Nobel—turning it from recognition of peace into a shield for authoritarian ambition—sets his case apart.

• The Erosion of the Nobel’s Credibility:
  While previous laureates’ failings could be explained as political complexities, Abiy’s case challenges the very logic of the Committee. By not reconsidering his award, the Nobel risks appearing complicit in legitimizing a leader who betrayed its ideals almost immediately.

Why Rescission Matters

Some argue that rescinding awards risks politicizing the Nobel Prize further, entangling it in shifting currents of international opinion. The Committee has historically refused to retract honors, preferring to let history judge. Yet the Abiy case is different. It is not about judging whether peace initiatives succeeded or failed in the long run; it is about whether a laureate has actively destroyed the very peace for which he was celebrated.

Rescinding his award would send three critical messages:

1. Accountability for Laureates: Nobel laureates cannot exploit the prize for legitimacy while betraying its principles.

2. Integrity of the Institution: The Nobel Committee must demonstrate that its honors are not irrevocable endorsements, but living recognitions tied to sustained commitment to peace.

3. Moral Clarity in a Cynical World: In an era where authoritarian leaders manipulate symbols for power, revoking Abiy’s award would reaffirm that peace prizes cannot be weaponized against peace itself.

A Path Forward for the Nobel Committee

The Abiy case underscores the need for reform in how the Nobel Committee selects and evaluates laureates. Three measures stand out:

• Avoid Premature Awards: The Committee should resist the temptation to crown “peace in progress” and instead wait for initiatives to demonstrate durability.

• Introduce Review Mechanisms: Establish a formal process to reassess laureates if overwhelming evidence emerges that they betrayed the principles of peace.

• Distinguish Between Symbol and Substance: Gestures such as handshakes or declarations must not be mistaken for lasting achievements; the Committee should anchor awards in demonstrable structural changes.

The Nobel Peace Prize has survived more than a century of controversy, but its credibility depends on its moral consistency. Abiy Ahmed’s award is not merely another case of a laureate falling short; it is an instance of direct betrayal of the very peace for which he was honored. In that sense, his case is unique in the prize’s history, posing an existential test for the Nobel Committee.

Other laureates—Kissinger, Suu Kyi, the Oslo signatories, Obama—each fell short in different ways. But none of them directly unraveled the achievement for which they were recognized. Abiy alone stands accused of undoing his own peace prize.
To leave his award intact is to endorse a paradox: that a man can win the world’s most prestigious peace prize for making peace with Eritrea and then retain it while preparing for war against that same neighbor. To rescind it would not erase the Committee’s mistake, but it would reaffirm its integrity and the principle that the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be turned against peace itself.

In Abiy Ahmed’s case, the Nobel Committee must choose between precedent and principle. History will judge which path it takes—but the uniqueness of this case demands a response unlike any before.