Could Trump actually win the Nobel Peace Prize?
Dr Emma Shortis: Benjamin Netanyahu visited the White House. He had dinner with President Trump and presented him with a letter.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: I want to present to you, Mr. President, the letter I sent to the Nobel Prize Committee. It's nominating you for the Peace Prize, which is well deserved and you should get it.
Dr Emma Shortis: He did it in a very, I suppose, flattering way, you know, talking about all the efforts Trump had made towards peace in Gaza and Trump responded as he does to flattery.
Donald Trump, US President: Thank you very much. This I didn't know. Well, thank you very much. Coming from you in particular, this is very meaningful. Thank you very much, Bibi. Thank you. Thank you
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: Thank you for everything you're doing. Thank you.
Dr Emma Shortis: Netanyahu did what he has been very good at doing in the past in flattering Trump in, I think it's not too far to say he manipulates him well. I think Netanyahu understands Trump perhaps better than many other world leaders and knew that Trump would love the fact that he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Sydney Pead: But this actually isn't the first time Trump's been nominated for this prize. Both the head of Pakistan's army and the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo also recently submitted nominations too. So what's going on there?
Dr Emma Shortis: That's right. Trump has been nominated a couple of times, as you said, by the Pakistani government in response to the Trump administration's role in that conflict between Pakistan and India a few months ago, though the Indian government contests the idea that Donald Trump played a role. And as you mentioned, the president of the Congo has also nominated Trump for a peace prize in his role in what they argue is resolving that conflict. So I think broadly speaking, these are examples of other world leaders like Netanyahu attempting to flatter Donald Trump, you know, to keep him on side when he is so volatile and liable to turn on allies, you know, at any moment.
Sydney Pead: And we know that Trump has this obsession with receiving a Nobel Peace Prize and he's had that for some time now, including back in his election campaign last October.
Donald Trump, US President: I'm just saying if it was anybody else, a liberal Democrat, they would have had it before the damn thing was even signed, you know. And I don't care, but I'm not looking for it. I'm not politicking for it. I'm just saying that there's a lot of unfairness in this world.
Sydney Pead: So when did this obsession really kick off? Because he sees himself as a peacemaker or a dealmaker, doesn't he?
Dr Emma Shortis: He does. You know, he certainly framed himself that way during the last election campaign in particular. He framed himself as the peacemaker and as the anti-war candidate.
Donald Trump, US President: I'm the only candidate who can make this promise. I will prevent World War III. This will be obliteration, perhaps obliteration of the entire world. I will prevent it. Nobody else can say that.
Dr Emma Shortis: But like many things, if not all things, that Trump becomes obsessed with politically and ideologically, his obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize is a direct response to it being awarded to President Barack Obama in 2009 during Barack Obama's first term.
Donald Trump, US President: If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to him in 10 seconds. He got the Nobel Prize for doing nothing, for getting elected. But I got elected too.
Dr Emma Shortis: So that's really, I think, where Trump's obsession started. You know, he came to office or he built his political campaign on wanting to undo anything that Obama had done and to better anything that he had done.
Sydney Pead: OK, before we get into how deserving Trump may or may not be, just remind me, what exactly is the process for winning a Nobel Peace Prize?
Dr Emma Shortis: The Nobel Peace Prize is managed by the Norwegian government. It's existed since 1901 and is awarded yearly to an individual or a group. And the award is decided by a committee appointed by the Norwegian parliament to a person or a group who has done the most or the best work for, as they describe it, fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. So it's a really important award. I think it has a huge influence on how people think about peace and security and, of course, gets a lot of attention. You know, that's part of the reason, again, why Donald Trump is obsessed with it. It's quite a rigorous process. The committee is advised by experts and I think prides itself on awarding the prize based on evidence and based on genuine contributions to peace.
Sydney Pead: I want to turn now to the merits of Trump's nomination because Benjamin Netanyahu cites the Abraham Accords, which Trump helped broker in his first term. So just tell me about those Accords and how important was that negotiation?
Dr Emma Shortis: Sure. So those Accords were widely regarded as very important and what they did or what they purported to do was normalise relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE, so the, I suppose, the more moderate Arab states.
Donald Trump, US President: The Abraham Accords were very important and you had really peace. You had the Arabs and the Jews getting along.
Dr Emma Shortis: The problem, of course, with the Accords was that they sought to circumvent or, I suppose, sidestep the Israel-Palestine conflict. And it became very clear on October 7 during the Hamas attacks on Israel that sidestepping that conflict was not possible and normalising relations between Israel and the broader Middle East while Israel was retaliating and occupying and attacking Gaza would be known as impossible. So while the Accords, the Abraham Accords, were regarded as important at the time, it has become clear that they were inadequate and didn't do the work of addressing that central question of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Sydney Pead: Okay. And Trump is also seeking credit for ending the so-called 12-day war in Iran, as well as brokering a truce between India and Pakistan and Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. So is there a case to be made for him on those fronts?
Dr Emma Shortis: I think on the merits, looking at those agreements, we can only conclude that they are temporary or they were born out of situations that Trump himself created. So you mentioned Iran, for example, at the beginning. That conflict involved the United States unilaterally bombing Iran with no legitimate basis in international law. So not only did the Trump administration further undermine the institutions and the principles of international law, it's also taken a policy position that you can effectively bomb your way to peace. And I, and I think many others, would argue that that directly contradicts the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize. I think when it comes to other conflicts like India and Pakistan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, you could certainly argue that the Trump administration played a role in a temporary stay for those conflicts, but that lasting peace, enduring peace, is not guaranteed and that the Trump administration is not willing to do the work to ensure lasting peace. In fact, it's undermining the institutions that contribute to that peace, including the United States diplomatic efforts and its provision of foreign aid, all of which creates further instability.
Sydney Pead: And of course, Trump has failed to bring about any ceasefire to the war in Ukraine, despite at one stage saying he could do it within 24 hours.
Donald Trump, US President: I'll take 24 hours. It would be easy. That deal would be easy. A lot of it has to do with the money. A lot of it has to do with the military, you know, that we're giving. But I would get that deal done within 24 hours.
Sydney Pead: But it's proven to be much more difficult than he originally suspected, right?
Dr Emma Shortis: Apparently so. You know, we're almost, I think, six months now into the Trump administration and there's no sign that that conflict is anywhere near resolution, despite, as you said, Trump's promise to end it on day one. What it has done is do things like unilaterally stop support, military support for Ukraine, which Trump appears to have been unaware of until it, after it happened, until after the defence secretary made that move.
News report: Well, it looks like the US President Donald Trump has reversed a unilateral decision by his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, to halt a shipment of military aid to Ukraine.
Donald Trump, US President: We want to put defensive weapons because Putin is not, he's not treating human beings right. He's killing too many people. So we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine and I've approved that. So
Reporter: Who ordered the pause last week?
Donald Trump, US President: I don't know. What don't you tell me?
Dr Emma Shortis: You know, I think Trump has periodically paid attention to the conflict, but has not made the investment required in diplomacy, in the kind of diplomacy that might begin to resolve that conflict.
Sydney Pead: And we did see Trump recently swing back towards criticising President Vladimir Putin. Just last week he blasted him for delaying moves towards a ceasefire, threatening more sanctions on Russia.
Donald Trump, US President: A lot of bullsh** thrown at us by Putin, for you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless. We're not happy with Putin. I'm not happy with Putin. I can tell you that much right now, because he's killing a lot of people.
Sydney Pead: And similarly, the war in Gaza has continued. A two-month ceasefire started just after Trump was inaugurated earlier this year. And Trump claims a new ceasefire between Israel and Hamas could be close, but this comes after so much death and destruction, it doesn't seem like peace is really on the horizon.
Dr Emma Shortis: Absolutely not. There is no peace in Gaza, and I think we can't emphasise that enough. The death and the destruction is almost incomprehensible, and Trump has shown no real interest, I think, in addressing that or in addressing the extraordinary overreach of the Israeli government. He's shown no interest in investigating accusations of war crimes in Gaza, for example. So even if he did announce a ceasefire tomorrow, that ceasefire would not be interested in building genuine peace and security. When Trump is talking about policies of forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza, that if nothing else, goes against, again, the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize, which is focused on human security and genuine peacebuilding.
Sydney Pead: Emma, Trump winning a Nobel Peace Prize, is it entirely out of the realm of possibility? Because the prize has been awarded to some fairly controversial figures in the past. Can you tell me about that?
Dr Emma Shortis: It has, and we mentioned that the Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama, and that was controversial at the time because the Obama administration saw, during the continuation of the war on terror, for example, the targeting of people with drone strikes. The Obama administration oversaw the bombing, continued bombing campaigns in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Libya, in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria. So the awarding of the Peace Prize to Obama is controversial, to say the least. And if we go back even further in history, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was awarded the Peace Prize in 1973 for his role in negotiating an end to the war in Vietnam, which of course was a war that the United States started, and a war in which Henry Kissinger played a really important role in overseeing bombing campaigns, in overseeing horrifying death and destruction. So the joint awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize then to an American leader was also controversial.
Sydney Pead: Okay, so there is form for US presidents to win the prize for brokering ceasefires in foreign conflicts, even ending wars that they may have started. So if Trump was to negotiate a lasting ceasefire in Gaza or Ukraine, do you think he would be in with a chance?
Dr Emma Shortis: I do think it's unlikely, and one of the reasons I think that is because the Nobel Peace Prize Instagram account actually put up a post explaining that nomination for the prize actually doesn't mean anything. Anyone can be nominated for the prize, and it doesn't actually mean that they are in with a chance. The Peace Prize Committee prides itself on the rigorous nature of that award and how the recipient is chosen, and I think would be very aware that even if awarding the Peace Prize to Trump might appease him for a little while and encourage some of his better instincts in terms of peace building, it would also implicitly endorse, well, it would directly endorse really, what Trump is doing in catastrophically undermining the principles of international law and also domestic law at home. We have to remember that this is a president who has deployed the military against American citizens in California. This is a kind of president who's threatening allies, close allies like Canada, with annexation. So awarding him the Peace Prize would effectively render the Nobel Peace Prize meaningless.
Sydney Pead: Emma Shortis is the Director of International and Security Affairs at the progressive think tank, the Australia Institute. This episode was produced by Kara Jensen Mackinnon and Cinnamon Nippard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sydney Pead. ABC News Daily will be back again tomorrow. Thanks for listening.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
22 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Indonesia is the latest country to sign a trade deal with Trump
Indonesia has become the latest country to sign a trade deal with US President Donald Trump. Under the agreement, Indonesia will face 19 per cent tariffs, while the US will pay nothing. American exports to Indonesia climbed by 3.7 per cent last year, totalling just under $61.4 billion. 'We have full access to Indonesia … we will pay no tariffs,' President Trump said.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
New evidence revealed as grand jury indicts Vance Boelter over murder of Minnesota politician and her husband
Prosecutors have revealed new details surrounding a man's motives to allegedly kill a prominent Minnesota state representative and her husband, and seriously wound a state senator and his wife, while he was allegedly disguised as a police officer. The new information comes after a US federal grand jury indicted Vance Boelter on charges that he fatally shot former Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark. Investigators say they have found a handwritten letter by Mr Boelter addressed to FBI Director Kash Patel in which he confessed to the shootings and made bizarre claims. The indictment handed up lists murder, stalking and firearms charges against Mr Boelter. The murder counts in the two deaths could carry the federal death penalty. "This political assassination, the likes of which have never occurred here in the state of Minnesota, has shook our state at a foundational level," acting US Attorney Joseph Thompson said. He said a decision on whether to seek the death penalty "will not come for several months" and will be up to US Attorney-General Pam Bondi. Mr Boelter's federal defender, Manny Atwal, did not comment on the indictment and the new allegations. Mr Boelter has not entered a plea, which was not required until the indictment was handed up. "In the letter, Vance Boelter claims that he had been trained by the US military off the books and he had conducted missions on behalf of the US military in Asia, the Middle East and Africa," Mr Thompson said. Mr Boelter also said in the letter that Minnesota Governor Tim Walz had approached him about killing the state's two US senators, fellow Democrats Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith. Asked by a reporter if all that was a fantasy, Mr Thompson replied: "Yes, I agree." "What he left were lists: politicians in Minnesota, lists of politicians in other states, lists of names of attorneys at national law firms." Friends have described Mr Boelter as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views who had been struggling to find work. At a hearing on July 3, Mr Boelter said he was "looking forward to the facts about the 14th coming out". In an interview published by the New York Post on Saturday, Mr Boelter insisted the shootings had nothing to do with his opposition to abortion or his support for Donald Trump, but he declined to discuss why he allegedly killed the Hortmans and wounded the Hoffmans. "You are fishing and I can't talk about my case…I'll say it didn't involve either the Trump stuff or pro life," Mr Boelter wrote in a message to the newspaper via the jail's messaging system. Prosecutors say Mr Boelter was driving a fake squad car, wearing a realistic rubber mask that covered his head and wearing tactical gear on the night in question. At around 2am on June 14, he went to the home of Senator John Hoffman, a Democrat, and his wife, Yvette, in the Minneapolis suburb of Champlin. He allegedly shot the senator nine times and Yvette Hoffman eight times, but they survived. Prosecutors allege he then stopped at the homes of two other politicians. One, in Maple Grove, was not home, while a police officer may have scared him off from the second, in New Hope. Mr Boelter then allegedly went to the Hortmans' home in nearby Brooklyn Park and killed both of them. Their dog was so gravely injured that he had to be euthanased. Brooklyn Park police, who had been alerted to the shootings of the Hoffmans, arrived at the Hortman home around 3:30am, moments before the gunman opened fire on the couple, the complaint said. Mr Boelter allegedly fled and left behind his car, which contained notebooks listing dozens of Democratic officials as potential targets with their home addresses, as well as five guns and a large quantity of ammunition. Law enforcement officers finally captured Mr Boelter about 40 hours later, about 1.6 kilometres from his rural home in Green Isle, after what authorities called the largest search for a suspect in Minnesota history. AP
West Australian
2 hours ago
- West Australian
UN says 875 Palestinians killed near Gaza aid sites
The UN rights office has recorded at least 875 killings within the past six weeks at aid points in Gaza run by the US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and convoys run by other relief groups, including the United Nations. The majority of those killed were in the vicinity of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation sites, while the remaining 201 were killed on the routes of other aid convoys. The GHF uses private US security and logistics companies to get supplies into Gaza, largely bypassing a UN-led system that Israel alleges has let Hamas-led militants loot aid shipments intended for civilians. Hamas denies the allegation. The GHF, which began distributing food packages in Gaza in late May after Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade, previously told Reuters that such incidents have not occurred on its sites and accused the UN of misinformation, which it denies. The GHF did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the latest UN figures. "The data we have is based on our own information gathering through various reliable sources, including medical human rights and humanitarian organisations," Thameen Al-Kheetan, a spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, told reporters in Geneva. The United Nations has called the GHF aid model "inherently unsafe" and a violation of humanitarian impartiality standards. The GHF said it had delivered more than 75 million meals to Gaza Palestinians since the end of May, and that other humanitarian groups had "nearly all of their aid looted" by Hamas or criminal gangs. The Israeli army previously told Reuters in a statement that it was reviewing recent mass casualties and that it had sought to minimise friction between Palestinians and the Israel Defence Forces by installing fences and signs and opening additional routes. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has previously cited instances of violent pillaging of aid, and the UN World Food Program said last week that most trucks carrying food assistance into Gaza had been intercepted by "hungry civilian communities". Separately, an Israeli scheme to move hundreds of thousands of already uprooted Palestinians to a so-called "humanitarian city" in Gaza has led politicians to spar with the defence establishment, but officials say a practical plan has yet to be crafted. Even without a clear blueprint, opposition critics have denounced the proposal, with some likening the suggested site to a "concentration camp", which could lead to ethnic cleansing in the coastal enclave devastated by 21 months of conflict. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's administration has defended the project, saying it would offer civilians a safe haven while further weakening Hamas militants' grip on Gaza, but it remains unclear whether it is a concrete government policy. The idea was floated by Defence Minister Israel Katz earlier this month and Netanyahu convened minister and defence officials to discuss it late on Sunday. The military had been asked to put together a detailed proposition, but Netanyahu dismissed it as far too costly and complicated, two Israeli officials who were present said, and ordered them to come up with something cheaper and faster. An Israeli military source said it was a complex initiative that required intricate logistics for infrastructure such as sewage, sanitation, medical services, water and food supplies. Planning was in a very initial phase only, the source said, and the goal was to help Palestinians who do not want to live under Hamas rule. Hamas did not respond to a request for comment.
