Now, in a move that has sparked both disbelief and debate, US President Donald Trump is aggressively lobbying for the Nobel Peace Prize. But can a figure as polarising as Trump ever align with the Nobel’s spirit? – Bhopinder Singh
Alfred Nobel’s will (1895) established the foundational principle of the prize “for the greatest benefit to humankind”. Specifically, the famous will mandates the Nobel Peace Prize to be bestowed on someone who “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.
It is a tall ask, and it has therefore been given to achievers like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan etc., who have shaped the destiny of societies across the world.
However, like all awards, it has had its share of questionable winners like Henry Kissinger (who oversaw US bombings in Laos and Cambodia, after the award), Menachem Begin (who was involved in activities like Irgun bombings), Abiy Ahmed (who subsequently participated in a brutal civil war) etc.
Equally contentious has been the track record of certain denials of the Nobel Peace Prize to luminaries like Mahatma Gandhi (ostensibly owing to technicalities) or Eleanor Roosevelt—or even an odd case of Vietnamese Le Duc Tho, who refused to accept the Prize, as peace had not been established in Vietnam, conclusively.
But all said and done, it remains the most coveted award that carries global heft and credibility, odd derelictions notwithstanding. Now there is a case of an individual making a brazen pitch for a Nobel Peace Prize for himself—i.e, American President Donald Trump. His plea that he was a deserving candidate for “doing great things” has been met with incredulous guffaws—and even support.
Trump’s conviction is based on the precedence of four previous Presidents of the USA—i.e, Theodore Roosevelt (for mediating the Treaty of Portsmouth between Russia and Japan), Woodrow Wilson (for ending World War I and founding of the League of Nations), Jimmy Carter (for yeoman services in advancing democracy, human rights and global conflict resolutions, post-retirement), and Barack Obama (for promoting nuclear non-proliferation).
This has emboldened Trump to re-posit the longstanding case—as he believes—of the Abraham Accords and summit diplomacy with Kim Jong-Un from his previous tenure, to what he believes has been a continuation of stellar performances in his second tenure. But he senses a bias in the Nobel Committee, as he expressed his frustration by saying, “No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me.” He has unabashedly added ostensible mediation in the four-day India–Pakistan standoff to buttress his claim. But the truth is that none of the claims of having “mediated successfully” have proven to be sustainable or attributable to him personally. If anything, the motor-mouth has been a major global disruptor and hardly a beacon for “best work for fraternity between nations”.
Further, Trump’s unilateral approach towards reneging on the crucial Iran Nuclear Deal, the UN Human Rights Council, or withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord has had a dangerously destabilising impact across the board. Added to the questionable track record is the obvious falling short of the Nobel spirit when a nominee actively propagates and beseeches his fitment for the Prize. At the end of the day, the author—that too, ghostwritten—of The Art of the Deal, who thrives on his businessman’s transactional nature, does not perhaps understand that the ethos and spirit of the Nobel Prize is holistic and does not preclude human rights, sufferings, and diminishments accompanying the so-called sovereign “Deals” and “Agreements” that Trump boasts of.
The jury evaluating the suitability of a nominee like Trump cannot ignore his inglorious track record, including acts like separating migrant families, brutal handling of public protests, and his other incendiary comments. Trump is the first former US President convicted of a felony and is infamously called by monikers like “Insurrectionist-in-Chief”, “The twice-impeached President”, “Grifter-in-Chief” etc., and with that sort of polarising public perception—the only practical recourse left to someone like Trump is through coercive demands or threats to the Norwegian Nobel Committee itself!
Towards the same, Trump has left no major pulpit or opportunity to stake a personal claim—however hankering, inelegant, and undignified it looks. Proposing his name for the Nobel are a bunch of extreme right-wing politicians and now joined in the “cause” by the Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir. The Nobel Committee is already under a lot of flak for its past choices, and therefore someone like Trump could be the death knell for the award.
Peace laureates must be seen as inclusive leaders, champions of democracy and human rights per se, besides championing their specific cause or people. Whereas Trump has patently pooh-poohed legality, constitutionality, and ideals of democracy—besides peddling misinformation and polarisation as a means to divide and rule.
When compared to a former awardee of the Nobel Peace Prize like the statesman Nelson Mandela, who stood for forgiveness, moral endurance, inclusivity, and social justice—the contrasting and jarring narrative à la Trump is about “Deals”, deterrence, and personal achievements! There is a reason why Trump cannot be Gandhi—who didn’t get the Prize—Mandela, or even Barack Obama—who has a lot to justify. The businessman struggles to comprehend that recognition cannot be bought—it has to be earned. – The Pioneer, 30 June 2025
› Lt. Gen. Bhopinder Singh is a military veteran and a former Lieutenant Governor of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry.
Filed under: norway, USA, world | Tagged: donald trump, nobel peace prize, public image, stolen honour, trump's legacy | Comments Off on Trump’s Quest for a Nobel Prize: A deal too far? – Bhopinder Singh
