In the early 1980s, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter attended an event in Stockholm. Approaching Stig Ramel, the longtime executive director of the Nobel Foundation, he asked with indignation: 'Why didn't you give me the peace prize for the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel? If I had received it, I would have remained president for a second term' (he lost to Ronald Reagan in 1980). 'I'm sorry, Mr. President, you were not nominated...' Ramel replied. The prize in 1978 was awarded to Egyptian President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin.
Donald Trump has more than secured his nomination. The ranks of those proposing him are constantly growing — from Rwanda, Cambodia, and Gabon to Armenia and Azerbaijan, not to mention individual people and organizations. Trump is the first to openly and forcefully demand the peace prize.
Carter hoped to improve his electoral fortunes with global recognition. Trump, however, is simply endlessly vain and childishly wants to have all the toys that exist.
But seriously? Is there any point to this spectacle? Technically, for the award to be given this year, Trump had to be nominated by January 31, when he had been in the White House for ten days. Perhaps someone did. Obama's same timeline did not prevent him from receiving the prize in his first year of presidency.
In Alfred Nobel's will, the criteria are succinct: 'To the one who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.' Trump has not succeeded in uniting nations — it’s hard to find a more polarizing figure. A reduction in militarism also doesn't fit: by 2026, the Pentagon is allocated a record budget of nearly $1 trillion. However, in conflict resolution, Trump claims to be an absolute champion.
The White House speaks of six cases, including the prevention of nuclear war (India-Pakistan). True, while listing achievements, Trump confuses the blessed countries (Albania instead of Armenia). But these are trifles. The crown jewel should be the cessation of hostilities in Ukraine — the deadline seems to coincide with the announcement of the laureate.
The style of Carlson (not Tucker, but the one who lives on the roof) is tiresome. It's hard to imagine support for such a candidate from those who make decisions in the Nobel Committee. But Europe is eager to appease the capricious patron, and behind-the-scenes maneuvers in favor of 'Nobel' for Trump should not be ruled out.
In general, the idea of awarding him the prize is not as absurd as it seems. The task of the Nobel Committee is to encourage activities that promote peace. At the stage of dismantling the world order that we are currently experiencing, resolving contradictions is impossible; at most, we can express a desire to pause and ease tensions. This is what Trump is doing — quite sincerely. By means available to him: from targeted demonstrative use of force to unrestrained rhetoric and economic coercion. Others don't even have that.
Paraphrasing Lenin, the Nobel Prize for Trump is essentially correct, but formally — a mockery. Such a world (in both senses), such a prize.
By the way, the Camp David Accords are still in effect, a rare example of resilience. The aggrieved Carter received the Nobel Prize more than twenty years later — for his peacekeeping activities after his presidency. Trump will not wait. Both by age and character — he needs everything here and now. Or never and for no one.
