Dr Asle Toje, Vice-Chair Of Norwegian Nobel Committee, On The Increasing Relevance Of Peace Prize

The quest to win the Nobel Peace Prize has been one of the defining themes of global politics in 2025. What makes this pursuit worth it? What makes the Nobel Peace Prize the most prestigious award in history? In a world where conflict is constantly shifting shapes - from the world wars to civil wars, to diplomatic conflicts to genocides - the idea of peace becomes central to our lives. It becomes our best bet at surviving... and thriving. In that sense, the Nobel Peace Prize speaks to something that is inherent to us humans - the right to exist... and co-exist. Dr Asle Toje is a celebrated scholar of foreign policy who joined the Norwegian Nobel Institute in 2009. Today, as the vice-chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Toje is one of the five members who will decide on the coveted award (in his will, Alfred Nobel did not explain why he wanted the peace prize to be given by the Norwegian committee whereas the other prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine, and literature are decided upon by Swedish committees). In Dubai to unveil the 'I Am Peacekeeper' movement, founded by Dr Huzaifa Khorakiwala, Dr Toje speaks about the evolution of the prize. Edited excerpts from an interview:

From the time you were the research director at the Nobel Institute to now that you are the vice-chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, how has your perspective on the idea of peace changed?

These are different worlds. We all have opinions on the Nobel Peace Prize - even people who work at the institute. But when it comes to making a decision, we are spoilt for choice. What surprised me initially is that it involved a lot of reading. We get
papers on all the candidates and we have to read up on each one of them. Every candidate must be taken very seriously. It is a very time-consuming process.

The Nobel Peace Prize has had to evolve from the time it was instituted to include issues like women's rights and climate change. What has redefining the idea of the prize entailed for the committee?

In the period towards the end of the Cold War, we observed a trend towards fewer conflicts. Instead of conflicts between countries, we observed the rise of civil wars. The intention then shifted to address the causes of these civil unrest - what was necessary to maintain peace in these societies. Sadly, in recent years, we have seen a shift back to wars where great powers are involved. And I don't have to tell you that these are much more devastating than wars between smaller states. The relevance of the Nobel Peace Prize is increasing at a time when few leaders are preciously speaking out for peace. Everybody is clamouring to defend their national interests, as they should. But there is new element of militarism that should make us pause because for the first time, there is actual chance of a war between great powers where nuclear weapons could be employed.

The five-member committee, you mention, does not vote. The idea is to reach a consensus. How do you arrive at it?

It is much more difficult than you would imagine. I think we tend to be more interested in what we say rather than hearing what the other person has to say. Decision-making by consensus means you have to listen. And you have to really try to understand the reasoning of other people around the table because that's the only way you will arrive at a conclusion. Sadly, it also means you cannot pick favourites; you have to keep an open mind because, most likely, you won't have your way. At the beginning, it is very easy to say, 'This is the one I want.' But other people around the table have their own points of view. Usually, we arrive at consensus towards a candidate who is very rarely anyone's first choice.

The Nobel Peace Prize has often come under the scanner when a laureate's actions - in the aftermath of their win - have been in conflict with the spirit of the prize.

How do you address this moral ambiguity?

(Laughs) This is a difficult one. We are awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for the work that the laureates have already done. We cannot foresee what they will be doing, and we certainly don't advise them after that. We hope that all the Nobel Peace Prize laureates will prove themselves to be worthy of that honour and will continue to further the cause of peace. Although I appreciate the question, the Nobel Peace Prize would not have become the most prestigious award in the world if we got it wrong so often.

A lot of conversation this year revolves around world leaders getting the Nobel Peace Prize. Is it ambiguous to give the honour to political figures?

One of the very first Nobel Peace Prizes was awarded to the American president Theodore Roosevelt, and that was hugely controversial. Roosevelt brokered peace between Russia and Japan in 1905. Even then there was so much tension about the dangers of giving the Nobel Peace Prize to politicians. But ultimately, it is practicing politicians who have the power to bring about change. Yes, it is one of the challenges we are always facing. You would be right in saying the prizes awarded to practicing politicians have been most controversial but also most important.

Do you ever deliberate on the omissions - people who should have won the Nobel Peace Prize, but didn't?

More often than you would think. The committee leader (Jørgen Watne Frydnes) and I are huge fans of the Nobel history. We always have ongoing discussions about this. And I am glad to say that we agree on one of the greatest omissions in our history, which is Mahatma Gandhi. I actually looked into how this happened. Turns out that the committee was about to give him the Nobel Peace Prize. They even sent an emissary to London, but the British apparently advised, 'We should see what happens with the Partition before giving Gandhi the prize.' As we know, he was later assassinated by a nationalist and we missed that chance. There are many omissions in the Nobel's history. You have to keep in mind that as we make our decision, we are sitting in a chamber whose walls are adorned by portraits of laureates who have won the prize since 1901. When we look at the candidates, we realise they have to be in the same vein. I wouldn't say we are prisoners to our history, but we are certainly informed by our history.

How has globalisation impacted the evolution of the Nobel Peace Prize?

I am not sure it has impacted the awards. I just think with globalisation, the world has become more interconnected. The people who are able to influence global affairs now reside in different parts of the world. You have to keep in mind that in 1901, when the prize was given for the first time, most of the world was colonised by the Western powers. It's not like that now. Strong countries like India, China, and Japan are shouldering the burden of fostering peace.

In a world that is living in constant state of war, how does one reinforce the importance of peace?

We must not curse darkness under the stars. In the Middle East alone, the UAE has done some great work to stabilise the region. It has become a force for bringing different people together. Not many could have guessed that 20 years ago. There are so many stars and bright spots we should be acknowledging even at this moment in time.

MENAFN11092025000049011007ID1110050247