Give the Nobel Peace Prize to McCain, not Trump
Trump has been obsessed with winning the Nobel Peace Prize for some time now. Even those not cynical about the president must concede that his foreign policy moves to end conflicts are less about ending the conflicts and more about looking like is the one ending them.
We will see what Trump demands of Putin in Alaska and if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will even have a seat at the table. But we do know that Trump is very keen to end the war because he thinks that the Nobel Committee will come calling if he does.
Now some might argue, what's the big deal? If Trump wants the prize and it makes him eager to force solutions to end conflicts, then maybe he does deserve it. Yeah, he might be self-serving, but ultimately, we can see an end to conflicts in places like Ukraine, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Caucasus and South Asia. And what would be wrong with that?
Well, if it's a peace made in bad faith that will ultimately break apart, then there is a lot wrong with it.
Allowing Russia to keep the territory it seized in its invasion and forcing Ukraine to go along with it, doesn't promote peace. It encourages war. It lets Russia and Putin claim that they were justified to invade and take territory. It bolsters their arguments against the sanctions and embargoes that have made them the pariah of the world. And it would also tell them that they could invade other places (Baltic states, Poland, Finland, Central Asian states) take territory and just nominate Trump for a peace prize when he tells them to stop, after they have taken what they wanted.
World leaders have noticed and teased Trump with nominations for the peace prize just to get him eager to settle conflicts on their terms. The Pakistanis and the Israelis have presented Trump with official nominations, even though he had nothing to do with the cessation of hostilities in South Asia and the war in Gaza. Expect to see more of this.
Meanwhile, there is a McCain who has been working for the last two years to feed starving populations around the world.
Cindy McCain has been the executive director of the United Nations' World Food Program and has been advocating for the end of the blockade of humanitarian aid by the Israelis on the people of Gaza. She has met with officials around the world, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio to push for the end of the blockade. A Republican (even if some people aren't happy about it), McCain has been more outspoken about the treatment of Gazans than many Democrats.
What makes McCain interesting is that, like many high-level political appointees, she initially sought to play it safe and not overtly talk about the plight of the Palestinians. Like many in the U.S. and Western Europe, she probably felt she had to walk a fine line, so as to not insult the Israeli government. She was even confronted by her own staff for not having spoken out enough. McCain could have just played it safe, but she listened to her staff and her own heart and has pushed for the end to famine, not just in Gaza but in Africa and other parts of the world.
Now, we all know she isn't the only one. Chef José Andrés, the founder of the World Central Kitchen, may be even more deserving of the Peace Prize. His organization, which lost seven employees in an Israeli airstrike has helped mitigate the fallout from worldwide disasters, famines and wars.
The common denominator between McCain and Andrés — and what separates them from Trump — is that their actions are more likely to ensure peace. Go anywhere in the world and people just want to have security, food, water and stability. The aims of the World Food Program and the World Central Kitchen do just that. Trump is trying to force ceasefires without solving the underlying reasons for conflicts which means the conflicts will eventually go on.
It must be said that the Nobel Committee can just be content with Trump's politicking because they just want world leaders to just stop fighting, even if the underlying issues are not addressed. They have awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to dubious recipients in the past. Henry Kissinger, Yassir Arafat, Yitzak Rabin and Shimon Peres all got the award, even though it's hard to attach the word peace to their names.
President Obama received the award early in his first term on the mere hope that he would bring peace. He went on to set new records with drone strikes in several Muslim-majority countries. And infamously, the Nobel was never awarded to Mahatma Gandhi, who inspired quite a few Nobel Laureates in their own quests for peace.
So, we can't pretend that the award isn't a political award. There is definitely a lot of bias that comes to selecting the winner, and there will always be a controversy around the award.
But the Nobel Committee can look at the current conflicts and decide what will ensure proper peace in the world. If it's a choice between bullying people into accepting injustice, or feeding children and working to bring stability to the world so that peace can prosper, I think the answer is clear.
Jos Joseph is a published writer and is a graduate of the Harvard Extension School and Ohio State University. He is a Marine veteran who served in Iraq. He currently lives in Anaheim, Calif.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Severe consequences': Trump warns Putin ahead of Alaska summit
President Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that Russia would face 'very severe consequences' if he determines during Friday's summit with Vladimir Putin that the Russian leader is still not serious about ending the war with Ukraine. Trump, who did not specify what those consequences might be, has been reluctant to increase economic sanctions or tariffs on Russia despite his mounting frustration with Putin's intensifying attacks on Ukrainian cities, civilians and indifference to peace talks. Lowering expectations that the sit-down with Putin in Alaska would yield a breakthrough, Trump said that he's hopeful this initial meeting could lead to another that includes Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and, potentially, Trump. 'First, I'll find out where we are,' Trump said. 'If the first [meeting] goes okay, we'll have a quick second one. I would like to do it almost immediately.' But, the president cautioned, he won't pursue a trilateral meeting if he doesn't think Putin is acting in good faith. 'There may be no second meeting because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we are not going to have a second meeting,' Trump said. Trump's comments came during an appearance at the Kennedy Center and shortly after an hour-long call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, in preparation for Friday's summit. Trump described the call as 'very good,' and several European leaders were quick to issue statements about the call Wednesday morning to underscore their alignment. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Trump 'largely shares' Europe's position on peace talks, and French President Emmanuel Macron stated that Trump is indeed pushing for a ceasefire, a top priority for Zelenskyy and NATO. Putin's stubborn refusal to entertain Trump's diplomatic entreaties so far has pushed the president into closer alignment with NATO allies and even Zelenskyy, who he dressed down in the Oval Office less than six months ago. Friday's sit-down with Putin, who many analysts believe is likely to try to repair his personal relationship with Trump in a private meeting while convincing him that Ukraine shares the blame for the prolonged conflict, will put the president's shifting convictions to a serious test. Even as he sought to put the onus on Putin to demonstrate new seriousness about ending the war, Trump downplayed expectations about his own ability to persuade the Russian president to do so. When asked whether he could convince Putin to 'stop targeting civilians in Ukraine,' he demurred. 'I guess the answer to that is probably no,' Trump said.
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Demands Thorough Review of Smithsonian Museums so All Exhibits Match Trump's Interpretation of U.S. History
The Trump administration has ordered eight Smithsonian museums to make its exhibits more "unifying" before the nation celebrates its 250th birthday in Washington next yearNEED TO KNOW Donald Trump's White House sent a letter to the Smithsonian this week, directing the institution to ensure its museums align with the president's vision, according to The Wall Street Journal Eight Smithsonian museums have been directed to thoroughly review and update their exhibitions, internal communications, featured artists and more The directive comes with a deadline, as the Trump administration readies its plans for America's 250th anniversary next yearThe White House continued its cultural crackdown on the Smithsonian this week, pressuring the institution to review its exhibits and operations and align them with President Donald Trump's view of American history. On Tuesday, Aug. 12, The Wall Street Journal reported on a letter that was sent by three top White House officials to Smithsonian secretary Lonnie Bunch. According to the outlet, the letter followed up on the directive laid out in Trump's March 27 executive order, titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," which targeted the Smithsonian museums by name. The executive order read, in part, "Once widely respected as a symbol of American excellence and a global icon of cultural achievement, the Smithsonian Institution has, in recent years, come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology. This shift has promoted narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive." The new White House letter offers specifics on how the Smithsonian can achieve "alignment" with the president's vision. Following a thorough review of exhibitions, internal communications, visitor surveys, featured artists, outside partners and more, the museums are then instructed to make updates that replace "divisive or ideologically driven" language with "unifying, historically accurate" content. The directive comes with a deadline, as the Trump administration readies its plans for America's 250th anniversary celebration in Washington next year. The Smithsonian is expected to submit extensive documentation of its review within 30 days before starting to make the expected changes. 'This is about preserving trust in one of our most cherished institutions,' said White House senior associate Lindsay Halligan, one of the officials who signed the letter, in a statement. 'The Smithsonian museums and exhibits should be accurate, patriotic, and enlightening—ensuring they remain places of learning, wonder, and national pride for generations to come.' The Smithsonian was diplomatic in its reply to the White House letter, saying, 'The Smithsonian's work is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history. We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents.' However, The Wall Street Journal spoke with historians who fear that the president's vendetta against so-called "diversity, equity and inclusion" initiatives may have a negative impact on the Smithsonian's ability to give a comprehensive look at U.S. history. 'The Smithsonian museums have never reflected one person's view, or even one administration's view,' Harvard history professor Tiya Miles told the outlet. 'They have reflected the composite research, analysis, discussion, findings of many different people, scholars and researchers.' Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, agreed, telling WSJ, 'If those things are taken out of the hands of historians, the public stands to lose a great deal in having reliable and engaging content that tells a whole and complex story of the American past." Following his March executive order, Trump's White House has already been accused of trying to rewrite history at the Smithsonian. On July 31, The Washington Post reported on a recent change to an exhibit at the National Museum of American History titled "The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden." A section of the display is dedicated to U.S. presidents who have faced impeachment, and includes information about Andrew Jackson, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon. (While Jackson and Clinton were successfully impeached, Nixon resigned the presidency before getting to that point.) Since September 2021, the exhibit had featured a temporary label about Trump's historic two impeachments, along with a notice for visitors that read: 'Case under redesign (history happens).' However, the Post reported that the label was removed in July "as part of a content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director." Without no mention of Trump, the exhibit has now reverted back to suggesting that 'only three presidents have seriously faced removal,' despite that Trump has more experience with impeachment than any other president. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. A Smithsonian spokesperson told the Post at the time that the Trump label was merely intended to be "a short-term addition to address current events." 'In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the 'Limits of Presidential Power' section in 'The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden' exhibition needed to be addressed,' the spokesperson said in a statement. The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.' Read the original article on People
Associated Press
2 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Trump pledged to move homeless people from Washington. What we know and don't know about his plans
President Donald Trump says homeless people in the nation's capital will be moved far from the city as part of his federal takeover of policing in the District of Columbia and crackdown on crime. With his exact plans unclear, there is concern among advocates and others who say there are better ways to address the issue of homelessness than clearing encampments, as the Republican administration has pledged to do. Washington's status as a congressionally established federal district gives Trump the opportunity to push his tough-on-crime agenda, though he has not proposed solutions to the root causes of homelessness or crime. Here's a look at what we know and what questions remain about how Trump's actions will affect the city's homeless population: How many homeless people are in Washington?It is difficult to obtain accurate counts of homeless populations. On one day at the end of each January, municipal agencies across the United States perform what is called a 'point-in-time' count aimed at capturing the total number of people in emergency shelters, transitional housing or without any housing. The 2025 count in the district put the total at 5,138 adults and children, a 9% decrease compared with the year before, according to Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser. Where will the city's homeless people be taken? It's not entirely clear. Trump wrote on his social media site before Monday's news conference announcing the takeover that 'The homeless have to move out, IMMEDIATELY. We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital.' Asked during a media briefing at the White House on Tuesday where homeless people would be relocated, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said local police and federal agencies would 'enforce the laws that are already on the books,' which, she said, 'have been completely ignored.' Citing a city regulation that she said gives local police 'the authority to take action when it comes to homeless encampments,' Leavitt said homeless people 'will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services.' Those who refuse 'will be susceptible to fines or to jail time.' In the past five months, the U.S. Park Police has removed 70 homeless encampments, giving the people living in them the same options, she said. As of Tuesday, Leavitt said only two homeless encampments remained in district parks maintained by the National Park Service and would be removed this week. What are city officials doing for the homeless? District officials said Tuesday they were making additional shelter space available after Trump said federal agents would remove homeless people in the city. Kevin Donahue, the city administrator, said outreach workers were visiting homeless encampments and that the city has a building available that could house as many as 200 people, if needed. Donahue made the comments during a conversation with community advocates and Bowser. The conversation was broadcast on X. He said the outreach would continue through the week with a 'greater level of urgency.' Bowser said that when Trump sees homeless encampments in the city it 'triggers something in him that has him believing our very beautiful city is dirty, which it is not.' What are Washington residents saying? Washington residents emphasized reductions in crime in recent years and concerns over the removal of homeless encampments in interviews Tuesday criticizing the federal takeover of the city's police department. Jeraod Tyre, who has lived in the city for 15 years, said 'crime has been slowing down lately' and argued that federal troops would only escalate tensions because they do not have 'relationships with the people in the community' like local police do. Sheiena Taylor, 36, said she is more fearful as a result of the presence of federal forces in the city where she was born and raised. Taylor said she has seen federal officers around her home and on the subway and worries about their targeting of young people and people experiencing homelessness. 'Being homeless isn't a crime,' she said, emphasizing the need for solutions to the root causes of homelessness or crime rather than policing. What do we still not know? It's not exactly clear what agents specifically will be tasked with moving homeless people to areas outside the city. There also hasn't been detailed information about how the people will be housed or provided for in new locations. Some advocates have raised constitutional questions about the legality of forcibly removing homeless people from the city. ___ Associated Press writers River Zhang, Christine Fernando, Mike Balsamo and Darlene Superville contributed to this report. ___ Kinnard can be reached at
