Gordon L. Weil
President Trump works hard at trying to earn the label of
peacemaker. He has his eyes on the Prize
-- the Nobel Peace Prize. He won’t win
it.
Though he may charge that the Peace Prize is worthless unless
he wins it or that the vote was “stolen,” some factors influencing the award are
not aimed at him personally, and he seems not to understand them. They make it impossible for him to win.
The selection is made by a special Norwegian committee from
a list of nominees proposed by hundreds of people worldwide. The five-member committee is appointed by the
Norwegian parliament. To ensure that it cannot be seen as representing the
country’s policies, it does not include any public office holders.
Alfred Nobel set idealistic standards for the Peace Prize and
the Peace Prize committee continues to honor them. Its selections often are meant to promote his
version of peace and not only as a reward for a winner’s past peacemaking.
For example, the committee saw the award to Barack Obama,
soon after he became president, as a sign of its hope for change in the
world. It wanted to encourage what it saw
as his commitment to nuclear disarmament and fewer barriers to international
cooperation. It did not link the award
to his historic election.
Fifty years ago, I wrote an article asserting that all Nobel
Prizes, including the science awards, are political. They are even more obviously political now. The
committees balance regions and countries, favor some rivals over others and
have their own leanings. They often
react slowly and follow other awards, especially in the sciences.
Why will Trump fail?
His view of peacemaking seems to consist of getting two
sides in a controversy to stop shooting at one another. He does not necessarily require that they agree
on a settlement with lasting effect.
Nobels don’t go for this minimal result. The agreement between Egypt and Israel
continues, despite calamitous events in the Middle East. An agreement between Israel and Hamas or
between Ukraine and Russia would have to be more than a ceasefire. Each would involve more than real estate, but
would touch on national sovereignty and survival. That’s not quick or easy to do.
Even if he were lauded for gaining a ceasefire, Nobel Peace
Prizes go to the two sides making an agreement, not the mediator who may have shepherded
the deal. George Mitchell got no reward
for the Good
Friday agreement in Northern Island.
Although he won later for other efforts, Jimmy Carter was not recognized
for the Israel-Egypt accord.
The Peace Prize goes more often to people exercising “soft
power” than those using “hard power.”
Greater emphasis is placed on negotiations and shared values than on the
use of force to reach an agreement.
The Nobel “art of the deal” involves negotiations and voluntary
compromise. It may entail political risk
for the parties and even for the mediator.
By itself, Trump’s coercive Oval Office meeting with Volodymyr
Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, may have torpedoed his chances for the Prize.
Nobody is perfect, so it’s likely that any Prize recipient
has defects. But the committee seeks to
draw attention to admirable people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela or George Marshall. Here, Trump’s personal prejudices, his
retaliation against opponents, and his attacks on universities plus his
disrespect for the law, all count against him.
While the Nobel Peace Prize Committee recognizes that its
awards may be controversial, its choices favor winners likely to gain broad
international support. Trump’s
aggressiveness in trade policy and attitudes toward Canada and Greenland, part
of Denmark, a fellow Scandinavian nation, do not make him an obvious choice for
the Norwegian committee.
In fairness, his approach could bring positive results, but
they would fall far short of Nobel Prize standards. His hard power approach has recently sent a
message to Israel, which continues to destroy Gaza.
His deal with the Yemini Houthis about the release of an
American hostage, his business-oriented trip to Arab countries while skipping
Israel, and his negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal are all moves that
could put pressure on Israel. The outcome
of his efforts might replace the attempted Israeli military solution to Middle
East relations with regional economic cooperation, just as happened in Europe,
though he may miss the similarity.
At the first sign of success, he is likely to assert his claim
to the unreachable Prize. He may not
understand why Barack Obama or Al Gore or
Jimmy Carter or many unknown people have won the award. It is this very lack of understanding of the
politics of hope that will cost him the Prize.
