The recent nominations of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize—first by Pakistan and now by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—raise troubling questions about the evolving meaning of this prestigious award. Once a symbol of tireless efforts towards global harmony, the prize now appears vulnerable to political theatrics and strategic endorsements by nations entrenched in conflict.
Trump’s nominations cite his role in the Abraham Accords and his intervention during the India-Pakistan standoff. He also claims credit for helping de-escalate the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, asserting that his diplomatic outreach helped prevent further escalation. Yet such claims fall short of the sustained diplomacy and moral leadership the prize was historically meant to honour.
This isn’t the first time the Nobel Committee has faced controversy. Barack Obama’s 2009 award, granted just months into his presidency, was widely criticised as premature. His tenure witnessed continued military operations in Afghanistan and the controversial killing of Osama bin Laden—achievements many feel run counter to the essence of peace-building.
In stark contrast, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese has emerged as a courageous advocate for human rights in Gaza, facing sanctions for exposing atrocities and standing firm in her commitment to justice. Alongside her, the doctors risking their lives to care for the wounded in Gaza embody the very spirit of peace and compassion the Nobel Prize was meant to celebrate.
As the Norwegian Nobel Committee prepares to finalise its selections in October, it must resist the temptation to reward geopolitical influence masquerading as peacemaking. The true spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize lies in recognising those who resolve conflict through empathy, dialogue, and unwavering commitment—not those who merely make claims. Peace should never be a political prop. If this prize is to retain its integrity, it must honour authentic efforts—not opportunistic gestures.
