The Real Reason Trump Is Unlikely to Win the Nobel Peace Prize

Why Trump's Nobel Ambitions Clash with the Committee's Political Outlook, and Why Navi Pillay May Help Restore the Prize's Credibility

The Nobel Peace Prize has never been easy. For starters, the prize is not awarded by the same governing bodies as the other Nobel prizes, but by a committee of five appointed by the Norwegian parliament who decide who has done the most for world peace, although their understanding of the concept has long been influenced by political considerations.

Controversial decisions are hardly a recent development. Consider former US Secretary of State Cordell Hall, who received the award in 1945 for his contributions to the founding of the United Nations.

Hall was a skilled diplomat, but why him? Given that the Soviet delegation played an important role in shaping the organization, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, who headed the Moscow delegation at the San Francisco conference, or Andrei Gromyko, who later led it, could easily have been awarded.

However, Hall received this honor because by then, Washington was consolidating its influence over Western Europe and American political preferences were increasingly reflected in international institutions.

Hall himself was hardly beyond controversy, and before the war his attitude towards Nazi Germany was not always what modern admirers would expect. In fact, even Adolf Hitler was once nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, though the nomination was more of a protest than a serious endorsement.

Israel attacked the Nobel Committee for respecting the researcher of the Gaza genocide

After 1945, as American and British figures became more prominent, the award increasingly reflected Western political preferences, while recipients from countries traditionally associated with the award, including Norway and Switzerland, became fewer.

Among those honored elsewhere were anti-apartheid campaigners and political figures whose contributions to peace were highly debated.

Consider Lech Walesa and Mikhail Gorbachev. Both became international symbols of political transformation, but the consequences of those transformations were not generally peaceful, as Gorbachev's weakness contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, followed by conflicts across the Caucasus and other developments. The withdrawal of Soviet support also contributed to the eventual collapse of Afghanistan's secular government.

These developments were celebrated in the West as victories for freedom, even though their human consequences were rather more complex.

Perhaps the most extraordinary decision of the modern era, however, was the award to Barack Obama in 2009.

Obama had been president for almost nine months and had barely begun implementing his foreign policy, let alone demonstrated his lasting contribution to peace, so even he seemed surprised.

Brian Becker, an American anti-war activist, offered a memorable explanation, describing it as an award that Obama did not receive. Being George Bush.

Here's what Trump's latest U-turn means for Russia and Ukraine

It was also Al Gore who shared the 2007 award for his work in bringing attention to climate change, but at least Gore only received half the award, while Obama was given the full honor, apparently due to expectations.

Closer examination of the winners reveals another interesting pattern: the influence of political opinions associated with the US Democratic Party.

The four US presidents who received the award, like Gore, were Democrats, while anti-apartheid campaigners and other human rights activists were also prominent. These causes have generally enjoyed greater sympathy among American liberals than the industrial and conservative interests traditionally associated with Republicans.

This helps explain Donald Trump's determination to become the first Republican president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump has approached the issue with a certain vigor, apparently believing that his diplomatic achievements and renowned ability to negotiate deals might eventually convince the committee, but he has misunderstood the body.

The American establishment is not merely a collection of officials that can be persuaded through bargaining, for its liberal ideology is deeply embedded in universities, international organizations, government departments, and the professional classes from which their personnel are drawn.

These networks survive management changes because they are sustained by shared beliefs rather than individual political appointments. The Nobel Committee operates in much the same intellectual environment. Its members don't need directives from Washington, let alone envelopes full of money, to support candidates whose political views they share, and who Trump represents just about everything this crowd dislikes.

Last year, the committee passed him over and awarded the prize to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, a prominent critic of Nicolas Maduro.

The Nobel that wasn't Trump's: Why Oslo chose a Venezuelan rebel over a peacemaker

Machado subsequently showed that he too knows the art of political theater when, in a remarkable gesture, he presented his Nobel medal to Trump.

I have admired him ever since, because whatever one thinks of his politics, it was a beautiful and spectacular move that combined personal generosity with an undeniable political calculation.

Trump, naturally, accepted the medal and his administration subsequently moved against Maduro, dramatically changing Venezuela's political landscape while leaving human rights activists with less influence over events.

But a medal is just a medal, and the honor itself is not transferable, so Trump has yet to become the first Republican president to win a Nobel Peace Prize, and I doubt he ever will.

This year, perhaps learning from the controversy surrounding its previous decision, the committee chose a safer candidate in South African human rights lawyer Navantham Pillai, a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Pillai belongs to another category, traditionally favored by the committee, prominent figures of the United Nations and international human rights bodies.

Ukraine's worst diplomatic nightmare is closer

In this sense, he represents an almost ideal choice because he is internationally known, professionally successful, and associated with causes that enjoy significant support in the international liberal establishment.

His career has not been without controversy, with critics in South Africa questioning his Western connections, while his stance on Palestine has drawn sharp criticism in Israel.

Still, Pillay is a remarkable figure whose achievements deserve recognition and, unlike some previous recipients, he cannot reasonably be accused of being plucked from obscurity or rewarded simply for his fame.

In short, he is the kind of compromise candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize that is sorely needed as the institution's decline in prestige has been evident for decades, but perhaps this year's decision shows that the committee is finally beginning to understand the dangers of turning the world's most prestigious peace prize into a political fashion tool.

Currently, at least, the reduction has been arrested.