Joshua Keating at Slate has figured out who it is:
This year the prize committee could best serve its mission by giving the prize to the person who most deserves it: nobody. Such a move would highlight that this has been a particularly violent year around the world. More importantly, it would serve as an acknowledgment that the most notable eruptions of violence have been so grimly predictable, the result of years of individual and collective failures by governments and international institutions.
While the emergence of ISIS and the disintegration of Iraq and Syria have taken place at alarming speed, these were less sudden explosions than the climaxes of crises that have been worsening for years. There’s a lot of blame to go around here, to the governments involved and those that intervened from the outside. But it shouldn’t be surprising that an unchecked civil war in Syria and years of shortsighted sectarian governance in Iraq would lead to a situation like this.
My only possible disagreement with this is that, as Keating notes, the Nobel Peace Prize has in the past gone to such leading peace activists as Henry Kissinger (in a year when the US was bombing the living hell out of Cambodia, no less), Yasser Arafat (for Oslo, which was basically DOA, and anyway, didn’t they review this guy’s lifetime body of work?), and Barack Obama, who only recently launched the eighth, arguably (and you can argue that that figure is too high, but you can also argue that it’s too low), military intervention of his presidency. The prize is further discredited by the fact that Mahatma Gandhi never won the damn thing, despite being nominated 12 times and despite the morbidly hilarious fact that the prize went to nobody in 1948 (Gandhi had tragically been assassinated before the Nobel Committee announced that year’s prize, and therefore was technically ineligible). So, really, they could also just award this year’s prize like this: