In the recent thaw in Korean relations and possible de-nuclearization and end to the Korean War, there has been talk of Trump receiving a Nobel Peace Prize. This has inspired howls of outrage from the left. One representative example comes from a Think Progress writer who called it “ridiculous” and cited Trump’s bombastic rhetoric and his Twitter feed. But examples from history and a comparison to Obama’s Nobel prize suggest that Trump has a legitimate claim for the award.
In his book Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger drew comparisons between Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt was the former Rough Rider and a warrior who believed in power politics and using his “Big Stick” to support an interventionist foreign policy. In contrast, President Wilson was the priest that believed in the moral power of self-determination, the 14 Points, war to end all war, and international peacekeeping organizations. Despite the contrast in rhetoric, it was the warrior (Roosevelt) that brought peace. Roosevelt intervened between Russia and Japan during their war (to preserve the balance of power in East Asia), and he won the Nobel prize for it. Wilson ended up getting America into the deadly and costly First World War and left a legacy of instability in Europe that produced World War II, and instability in Middle East that we are still dealing with today. In short, the war-like rhetoric produced peace, and the peaceful rhetoric led to war and instability.
Trump lacks a politician’s finesse and tact, but his blunt style and preference for action has cut the Gordian Knots that entangled past presidents. Despite decades of support for moving the embassy to Jerusalem, it was Trump who finally did it. Again, decades of failed negotiations have haunted the Korean peninsula and failed to make significant changes, but a year of saber rattling and Twitter taunts have led to a breakthrough in negotiations.
Nobel Peace Prize concert 2009. (Credit: Harry Wad/Wikimedia Commons)
Of course, the negotiations could still fail, but they are a significant step that contrasts with Obama’s meritless award. With almost ten years of hindsight, we can better reassess Obama’s early years. Without looking it up, I doubt few readers could name any of the foreign policy successes of that first year that won him the prize. I only remembered the Cairo speech in summer of 2009, and further research didn’t bring additional examples. One representative writer pointed to Obama’s 2015 change in Cuba policy, and the 2016 deal with Iran. But the Iran deal is currently being reassessed with the help of European allies thanks to Trump’s supposedly unhelpful rhetoric, which again speaks to Trump’s ability to get things done in spite of or because of his bombastic Twitter use.
In short, Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize because he was good at giving speeches that agreed with elite opinion about multilateralism. It’s not ridiculous, but based on his record of accomplishment, Trump has earned a place in the conversation about winning a Nobel Peace Prize. It is very ironic, but supported by the example of previous presidents, that the warrior actually has a better chance of producing peace than the priest.
