A year ago, I wrote that if Donald Trump had been a Democrat, he would have won the Nobel Peace Prize. In Sweden, that was a controversial statement at the time.
But one year later, it rings truer than ever.
In 2007, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to raise awareness about man-made climate change. During his time as vice president, however, the United States took part in five different wars—two of them in Europe.
In 2009, Barack Obama was awarded the same prize for his ‘efforts in diplomacy’. During his presidency, the United States participated in seven different wars. How many of them ended during his term? None.
Trump, on the other hand, has on several occasions demonstrated higher ambitions than his predecessors. During his first term, the United States started no new wars—and no other great power dared to do so either.
In his current term, he has not only ended one war. Not two, three, four, five, six, or seven—but, as of writing, eight when you include the recent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
Let me be clear: there is no other political leader who has, or could have, brokered peace in eight conflicts in less than ten months. But Trump did.
‘There is no other political leader who has, or could have, brokered peace in eight conflicts in less than ten months. But Trump did’
That peace now prevails between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Congo, as well as India and Pakistan, is an achievement we could not have expected from anyone else. And he has done it, in several cases, in the most ‘Trumpian’ way imaginable—through deals. Trade agreements and diplomatic arrangements have taken place across Central Asia and Africa. Between India and Pakistan—two nuclear powers—the solution was, as he himself called it, ‘the power of tariffs’.
Of course, there are serious and legitimate criticisms that can be made of Trump’s conduct over the past ten months. Not least his reckless handling of the issue concerning Greenland and Denmark, which time will tell whether he truly intends to pursue.
I am also disappointed in his failure to restrain Israel and to prevent Prime Minister Netanyahu from committing what many—including in Sweden—describe as genocide in Gaza. Nor has he managed to prevent Israel from, to varying degrees, engaging in conflicts with nearly all of its neighbouring countries—an unfolding of events that could very well result in increased migration flows to Europe.
Yet, when looking at which European interests he actually serves, it is worth highlighting his sincere attempts to achieve a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine—and, after those efforts failed, his 180-degree turn toward an unmistakably pro-Ukrainian position. That shift is welcome.
Nevertheless, instead of Trump, this year the Nobel Committee chose to award the prize to a brave opposition politician from Venezuela. She admittedly holds no real political power, yet no one would argue that she might not deserve the prize one day.
But the fact remains: had Trump been a Democrat, he would have won the Nobel Peace Prize. It is nothing short of a scandal that he did not win it this year.
Related articles:
