Yes, Donald Trump insists that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, the recipient of which we will know on October 10. No matter how provocative, or even grotesque, this claim may be, the American president has cards to play. In history, other winners, also contested, have been crowned. And Donald Trump can say that he has some reasons to believe it. Here’s why:
In October 2009, Barack Obama, elected for less than a year, received the Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy”. No treaty, not the slightest ceasefire. But contrition… In June 2009, in front of students at Cairo University and under the gaze of the imams of al-Azhar, the 44th president came to apologize: “I came to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world – one based on mutual interest and respect, and on the fact that America and Islam are not exclusive and do not have to be in competition. » A speech applauded by the Western media, which led to nothing. Even he admitted it, almost modestly: “I don’t deserve it yet.” »
However, when it comes to peace, Obama’s record was anything but exemplary. Syria plunged into chaos, marked by the red line he drew in 2013 against the use of chemical weapons… which he never applied. Result: a strengthened Bashar al-Assad, hundreds of thousands of deaths and the emergence of Daesh. In Europe, Barack Obama watched helplessly as Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the first brutal change in borders on the continent since World War II. Far from having contained Moscow, he let it happen. In Afghanistan, despite his promises of withdrawal, he relaunched the war with a reinforcement of 30,000 additional soldiers. And in Libya, his administration actively participated in the 2011 bombings, which toppled Gaddafi but left the country in lasting chaos, a breeding ground for Islamists. In the history of the prize, he embodies one of the most blatant examples of “Nobel of intention”.
The Nobel is full of examples of prizes awarded more for promise than for results. Jimmy Carter in 2002 for his commitment ” continuous “ in favor of peace, or the international campaign against antipersonnel mines in 1997, rewarded even before the effective application of the treaty. Let’s compare! Donald Trump is lining up agreements, ceasefires, concrete negotiations. Why would what was deemed legitimate for one be grotesque for the other?
Because these agreements still hold
Signed in September 2020 in Washington, the Abraham Accords normalize relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, as well as Morocco and Sudan. Since the Camp David Accords in 1978, which earned Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin the Nobel Peace Prize, and those of Oslo in 1993, rewarded with a prize awarded collectively to Peres, Rabin and Arafat, few comparable advances have taken place in the region.
Five years later, and despite the war in Gaza, these agreements still hold. Certainly there was no popular momentum, nor any real rapprochement. Nevertheless: Donald Trump has extracted unprecedented diplomatic recognitions between Israel and the Gulf monarchies. In the history of the committee, we have already crowned shaky, icy, incomplete peaces. Why would he be less legitimate than Sadat and Begin?
Because Pyongyang offered him a break, even a forgotten one
June 2019: Donald Trump crosses the dividing line between the two Koreas, a world first for an American president. The image is spectacular, but not only that. For almost two years, Pyongyang suspended its nuclear tests. Yes, no treaty was signed, and Kim Jong-un resumed his provocations. But remember that in 1973, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, with his North Vietnamese counterpart Lê Duc Tho, won the Nobel for the Paris Accords supposed to “end” the Vietnam War. Except that the conflict continued for two more years, with tens of thousands of deaths, until the fall of Saigon in 1975. Lê Duc Tho, lucid, even refused the prize, judging that peace was not there. Henry Kissinger accepted. And the committee accepted this embarrassing choice by explaining: “It is not a perfect peace, but a possible peace. » In other words: the Nobel rewards leaders. Sometimes illusions. The logic would be the same for Donald Trump. The handshake with Kim Jong-un did not disarm North Korea. But it was a milestone.
The Nobel has never been a prize for moral exemplarity. It is a reward granted to historical actors, those who move lines
Because he blew up a barrier in the Caucasus
Thirty years of hidden war, two bloody conflicts, tens of thousands of deaths. European diplomats have exhausted themselves, the Russians have gotten bogged down while the UN has produced a series of empty resolutions. The Caucasus is the archetype of insoluble conflict.
Donald Trump forced the lock. Without technocratic jargon or multilateral high mass, he achieved what no one had obtained: a protocol on the Zangezour corridor, this strategic ribbon linking the exclave of Nakhitchevan to the rest of Azerbaijan, with in return minimal guarantees for Armenian villages.
We can be ironic about television sets. Yes, it’s a fragile peace. Yes, it’s temporary. And it’s probably lame. But the history of the Nobel is full of these imperfect peaces. The prize has never certified definitive successes. It rewards an impulse. And on the Caucasus, Donald Trump accomplished what no other diplomat had been able to achieve: a signature. In the annals of the prize, this has often been enough.
Because he already has official appointments
This is not a rumor started on Truth Social nor a petition from Trumpist fans! In June, it was Asif Ali Zardari, President of Pakistan, who personally submitted an official recommendation for Donald Trump to the Nobel committee, praising his role in de-escalation with India. And he’s not the only one. Benyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli ally, also slipped in a letter of recommendation. Other foreign parliamentarians joined in. These approaches are recognized by the committee. It is these official applications, and not the publicity stunts, which fuel the selection. There are precedents. In 2014, Vladimir Putin was nominated for his role in the Syrian crisis. Stalin was even twice, in 1945 and 1948, for his victory against Hitler and for the creation of the UN. We have seen much worse than Donald Trump go through the candidacy sieve. Nelson Mandela and Frederik de Klerk received the prize in 1993 amid political assassinations and gang wars in the townships still shook South Africa.
The Nobel has never been a prize for moral exemplarity. It is a reward granted to historical actors, those who move lines. On this level, Donald Trump ticks the boxes.
Because he assumes peace by force
Donald Trump does not use the language of diplomatic homilies but that of a real estate developer, mixing pressure and, if necessary, sanctions. Its Iranian strategy of “maximum pressure” aimed to break Shiite expansionism. His brutal relationship with NATO forced the Europeans to increase their defense budgets, strengthening the credibility of the alliance against Russia.
In recent history, every American president has committed his troops: in Vietnam for Johnson and Nixon, in Iraq for Bush father and son, in Kosovo for Clinton, in Libya for Obama. Trump did just the opposite. He withdrew troops from Syria, avoided escalation with Iran, maintained an armed peace with North Korea. Even his opponents recognize it: no American president since Jimmy Carter has been so little interventionist.
Because the image in Alaska was strong
It’s an antiphon that greatly amuses the American president, especially since he plays it himself. Donald Trump prides himself on being “Putin’s friend”. But let’s remember: during its first term, Moscow invaded neither Ukraine (it will be in 2022, under Joe Biden), nor other neighbors. Donald Trump boasts, systematically repeating: “Putin didn’t move with me, because he knew I could be unpredictable. » Exaggeration or not, the facts remain: Russia remained quieter for four years than under the Democratic presidency of Joe Biden. Certainly, the face-to-face summit with Putin in Alaska on August 15 did not lead to any concrete results, no treaty, no ceasefire. But here again, the image counted: that of an American president sitting alongside his historic rival, in a logic of direct dialogue rather than a latent cold war. This kind of sequence marks the diplomatic imagination. It is often this type of spectacular gestures, more than numerical results, which give a leader the appearance of a man worthy of nobility.
The reward has never been a prize for moral exemplarity
Kim Dae-jung in 2000, for example, was rewarded for his Sunshine Policy after a meeting with Kim Jong-il in Pyongyang: a lot of symbolism, few results, but an image that struck people’s minds.
Because it embodies a counter-narrative
Oslo has often consecrated liberal icons: Obama, the European Union, the UN. Crowning Trump would be a slap in the face to the dominant narrative. Like Gorbachev (1990), political prize par excellence, while the USSR was still standing, or Mandela/de Klerk (1993), yesterday’s enemies forced to get along, a Nobel for Trump would show that peace can be born from divisive, sometimes rough personalities. Peace is not just a moral concept, it is a balance. Trump would not be the first controversial winner. And the price, each time, has played its role in provoking global debate. Giving the Nobel to Trump would be pushing to consolidate existing agreements, to extend its diplomatic dynamic. A bet. In the same Nobel tradition.
