Editorial | Donald Trump and the Illusion of the Nobel Peace Prize: A Diplomacy of Coercion
Donald Trump’s recurring claim that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize rests on a carefully constructed political narrative rather than on a consistent record of conflict resolution. Behind the image of a self-proclaimed “peacemaker” lies a foreign policy approach rooted not in mediation or institutional diplomacy, but in coercion, unilateralism, and the personalization of international relations.
Trump’s foreign policy represents a sharp departure from liberal institutionalism, embracing instead a transactional and power-centered interpretation of global affairs. Conflicts are not treated as collective security challenges requiring multilateral solutions, but as bargaining arenas in which pressure, sanctions, and threats are deployed to extract short-term gains. This strategy may create moments of tactical calm, but it rarely produces sustainable peace.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict illustrates this doctrinal rupture clearly. By recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and sidelining the two-state framework, the Trump administration abandoned the traditional U.S. role as a mediator. Rather than facilitating negotiations, these decisions entrenched asymmetries and accelerated political radicalization, making any negotiated settlement more distant.
A similar logic governed U.S. policy toward Iran. The unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), despite international verification of Iranian compliance, weakened the credibility of multilateral non-proliferation mechanisms. The targeted killing of General Qassem Soleimani further escalated tensions and normalized the extraterritorial use of force, setting a dangerous precedent in international relations.
In Afghanistan, the Doha agreements exemplified Trump’s preference for short-term political optics over long-term stability. Negotiating directly with the Taliban while bypassing the Afghan government conferred legitimacy on an insurgent movement and undermined state institutions. Framed as a peace initiative, the process instead facilitated the eventual collapse of the Afghan political order.
This pattern extended across multiple theaters: indirect support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, expanded drone operations in Somalia, economic warfare against Venezuela, and strategic confrontation with China. In none of these cases did conflict de-escalation constitute the central objective; rather, peace was invoked as a rhetorical device within a broader strategy of dominance and deterrence.
From a theoretical standpoint, Trump’s diplomacy aligns with an assertive form of offensive realism, where peace is defined not by reconciliation or institutional balance, but by the temporary stabilization of power hierarchies. Yet the Nobel Peace Prize has historically recognized efforts grounded in dialogue, norm-building, and durable conflict transformation. It rewards architects of de-escalation, not managers of coercion.
Ultimately, Donald Trump’s international legacy is less one of peacebuilding than of systemic destabilization. His policies contributed to the erosion of multilateral norms, the weakening of international institutions, and the normalization of force as a primary diplomatic instrument. In this light, the pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize appears less as a credible political ambition than as a narrative tool designed to legitimize a confrontational worldview.
Under such conditions, awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Donald Trump would not reflect political-science analysis, but rather political fiction.
Tiwana 24 
Laisser un commentaire