1/7/2025–|Last update: 17:08 (Mecca time)
Washington- Since his first term, US President Donald Trump has been waving his right to obtain the Nobel Peace Prize, based on what he considers major achievements in international policies, including normalization agreements between Israel and Arab countries, and his approach to what he calls “peace through power.”
Talking about the award recently, after the Pakistani government announced his candidacy for its “efforts to contain the escalation between Islamabad and New Delhi”, which was followed by another candidacy from a Republican member in the US House of Representatives.
This comes at a time when the second Trump administration carried out unprecedented strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, and continued to provide unconditional support to Israel in its war on Gaza. What raises questions about the extent of harmony of its policies with the moral and humanitarian standards that the Nobel Committee usually is built.
Value gap
While Trump’s supporters are based on a candidate “deserves” the award to what they see “real achievements” on the ground, especially after the recent strikes that ended a dangerous escalation between Iran and Israel, some Republicans believe that the award may be fundamentally incompatible with his image as he sees and promotes it.
It is excluded Former Republican Representative Thomas Gareth, who was working on the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives, is a possibility that Trump will be awarded the Nobel Prize “because there is a real valuable gap between him and the party that chooses the winners.”
Gareth praises, in an exclusive interview with Al -Jazeera Net, what he considered “amazing move” from Trump, in which he stopped the outbreak of an open regional war, saying, “The world is now safer than it was just a month ago, if you just asked me two weeks ago, I would have said that we are on a disaster.”
In 3 files, it may form – in his opinion – in theory real justifications for Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize:
- the first: What he described as the risk of slipping into a nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and India, considering that the calm that took place at the time is not adequately appreciated.
- the second: It refers to Abraham’s agreements that were signed in Trump’s first mandate, and believes that it has exceeded what was achieved by any American president in 50 years.
- the third: The last escalation management with Iran, in which he sees a “rare achievement” in the ability to stop the war at a critical moment.
Brand is political
Although the former Republican Representative does not hide his admiration for what he considers a sudden diplomatic achievement for Trump in the Iranian file and the aforementioned issues, he does not belong to the “hardline trampin” camp, but rather shows that he knew the American President from the Al -Moayad site at times and different from him at another time, stressing that “he does not understand those who sanctify him or whoever absolutely opposes him.”
Gareth believes that Trump benefits from the claim of entitlement more than the same victory, and explains that the award itself does not serve the image that Trump is keen to consolidate at the base of his supporters, as he “does not seek institutional recognition as much as he invests in being a victim rejected by the institution,” which – according to him – is a central idea in the “brand” (the brand) of his political.
According to him, Trump knows that the award will not be granted to him, and he enjoys the promotion of this paradox, and “he loves to repeat: I deserve the prize but they will not give it to me, and even if a miracle occurs and won it, this may lose him part of his image in front of his base because it is based on the clash with the institution, not recognizing it.”
On the other hand, Trump opponents believe that just talking about the Nobel Prize in the context of his political record represents a great moral paradox. During his first and second states, he faces sharp criticism for his decisions related to preventing citizens of Islamic countries from entering the United States, and his statements described as “inflammatory” against immigrants, as well as his bias and absolute support for Israel in the Gaza war.
Sarcasm
In this context, Salah al -Din Maqsoud, Executive Director of the American -Islamic Relations Council (Kiir) in New Jersey, says that Trump’s endeavor to win the Nobel Peace Prize “is a matter of mockery.” He adds to Al -Jazeera Net that “his actions, personality and policies are not consistent with the values that have traditionally associated with Nobel,” he adds to Al -Jazeera Net.
What is Maksoud believes that any candidate must show a real commitment to human values to be considered worthy of this kind of appreciation, adding that “President Trump – for many reasons – is closer to being a joke than to be a serious candidate for this prestigious award.”
Since its establishment in 1901, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has maintained the award for those who contribute to exceptional efforts to settle disputes and bring peace. It was won by 4 American presidents:
- Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 for his role in ending the Japanese -Russian war.
- Woodro Wilson in 1919 for his initiative to establish the League of Nations.
- Jimmy Carter in 2002 in appreciation of his efforts in promoting democracy and human rights.
- Barack Obama in 2009, less than 9 months after he assumed the presidency in appreciation of what the committee described as “strengthening international diplomacy”, and the decision sparked a wide discussion at the time inside and outside the United States, and Trump’s mockery, who commented on more than one occasion, said, “Even Obama does not know why the award was awarded.”
