In 2016, U.S. President Donald Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. An anonymous letter sent to the Nobel Prize Committee in Sweden argued that Trump deserved the award for his “vigorous peace through strength ideology.” Of course, Trump never won the prize.
The Nobel Peace Prize has often been seen as having political undertones rather than being purely about positive influence. A notable example is when Jimmy Carter received the award in 2002, and Barack Obama won it in 2009, less than a year after taking office. In both cases, many viewed the awards as a critique of the hawkish foreign policies of President George W. Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq. Carter and Obama, with their more diplomatic approaches, were seen as symbolic opposites to Bush’s aggressive stance in these conflicts.
Notably, Henry Kissinger, a highly controversial figure, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 alongside North Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho for negotiating the Paris Peace Agreements that aimed to end the Vietnam War. This award was met with significant criticism, as Kissinger had been involved in the bombing of Vietnam and Cambodia during the war, actions that contradicted the principles of peace and human rights.
Since the end of the Cold War, several prominent figures from Southeast Asia have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. These include Aung San Suu Kyi from Myanmar (1991), José Ramos-Horta from East Timor (1996), and Maria Ressa from the Philippines (2021).
A common thread among these laureates is that, at the time of their recognition, they were non-state actors advocating for change against relatively authoritarian regimes. Additionally, each of them received substantial support from Western countries in advancing their causes for democracy, human rights, and freedom of expression.
What about state actors and leaders in Southeast Asia? The region is relatively prosperous, and has seen significant poverty reduction and notable democratic transitions in some countries. So, why haven’t we seen state actors from the region winning the Nobel Peace Prize? Perhaps we should begin by asking whether there are any state actors whose achievements merit such recognition.
For example, take Indonesia, one of the region’s most stable democracies. Its leaders have contributed to establishing and maintaining democracy and peace. Two notable examples are the successful limitation of military influence after decades of military dominance under Suharto’s New Order regime (1968–1998), and the preservation of peace with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) following the devastating tsunami of December 2004.
Several countries in Southeast Asia, including Thailand, Indonesia, and Myanmar, have histories of military-dominated regimes. However, Indonesia stands out as the only country among them that has not experienced a military coup since the fall of its autocratic leader. In contrast, Myanmar’s military launched a devastating coup in 2021, arresting its democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, and Thailand has seen multiple coups since 2000. Indonesia has managed to avoid any military intervention since Suharto’s 30-year rule.
Efforts to reduce the military’s influence in Indonesia’s public sphere began under President B.J. Habibie in 1998 but gained significant momentum in 2004, when military representation in parliament was formally eliminated. The process of consolidation continued during the 10-year presidency of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY). Notably, two of SBY’s ministers of defense were civilians, marking a critical period of reform for the country, which faced security challenges such as reconciliation after religious conflicts in Maluku, terrorist attacks in Bali (2002) and against the Australian Embassy in Jakarta (2004). At the same time, the country successfully held its first local elections, allowing citizens to elect leaders at the district and village levels, marking a significant shift from the previous authoritarian regime.
One of the most dramatic events during this period was the 2004 tsunami, the largest natural disaster in Indonesia since independence, which devastated Aceh and claimed over 250,000 lives. SBY, alongside Vice President Jusuf Kalla, coordinated rescue and rebuilding efforts in Aceh. A notable outcome of this disaster was the peace agreement with GAM, a separatist group.
While some argue that the tsunami itself triggered the reconciliation, it was SBY and Kalla’s ability to manage international support and negotiate with key figures within GAM that ultimately made the peace deal possible. The Swedish government, home of the Nobel Prize, also played a mediating role in the process. Today, GAM has largely disbanded, while other Islamic separatist movements, such as those in southern Thailand and the southern Philippines, remain active.
There are rumors that Jusuf Kalla was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Mahathir Mohamad, Malaysia’s long-serving prime minister, was also speculated to be a nominee in 2008. Neither can be officially confirmed, since the list of nominees remains confidential for 50 years after the announcement.
Nobel Peace Prizes awarded to state actors often reflect political interests, unlike those given to non-state figures. For example, the controversial Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, received the prize for his work on the Oslo Accords, along with Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. Likewise, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat were honored for negotiating the Camp David Accords. Like Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, these figures have all been involved in armed conflicts or engaged in bloody military operations.
While leaders like SBY, Kalla, Mahathir, and Lee Kuan Yew have faced criticism for their democratic and human rights records, they are less controversial than many of the laureates mentioned above, yet they have never made the Nobel laureates list.
The influence of the United States, United Kingdom, and France is evident in the decision-making process of the Nobel Peace Prize. In the context of Southeast Asia and other developing countries, leaders either align themselves with the narratives of Western powers to bolster their candidacy or actively lobby to promote their own narratives to gain consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize.
However, it is clear that the achievements of Southeast Asian leaders in creating stable markets (e.g., Singapore, Malaysia) or fostering democracy and peace (e.g., Indonesia) have not resonated with key decision-makers in Washington, London, Paris, and Stockholm.
Given the political nature of the Nobel Peace Prize, the question of why Southeast Asian leaders have not won the award perhaps reflects their limited influence and strategy in dealing with major powers, especially in promoting their own story and narrative.