The ‘Peacemaker’ & Elusive Peace

In his inaugural address on January 20 this year, President Trump had said "My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier. That’s what I want to be: a peacemaker and a unifier". He has repeatedly said that this was the reputation he wanted to be recorded in the history books.

It is no secret that he covets the Nobel Peace Prize. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Jul 31: "It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

Donald Trump's obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize has several reasons, such as a craving for international prestige and a decade-long rivalry with former US president Barack Obama who won this prize in 2009. Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize multiple times since 2018 but is yet to win it.

Pakistan said in June that it would nominate him for the award for his role in helping to end its conflict with India. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last month he had nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Cambodia's prime minister also said that he has nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, lauding his "extraordinary statesmanship" in halting a border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand.

Now, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on Saturday also jointly threw their weight behind Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Both these leaders credited Trump’s mediation for ending decades of conflict and called on the Nobel committee to recognise his efforts. Aliyev asked, “Who, if not President Trump, deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?” while Pashinyan described Trump as the “peacemaker” behind the “breakthrough” and said that the US President “deserved the Nobel."

There are many who may dispute Trump's claim to the Nobel Peace prize, but the Nobel Peace Prize is no stranger to controversy. Criticisms that have been levelled against some of the awards include allegations that they were politically motivated, premature, or guided by a faulty definition of what constitutes work for peace. As The New York Times stated in an article on May 4, 2018, the Nobel Committee “began choosing winners in 1901, and for almost as long, some of its choices have been assailed as politicised, parochial or just misguided.”

In fact, Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize also faced a wave of criticism. He received the prize in the first year of his presidency, which some considered too early. Critics pointed out that Obama's presidency was still in its early stages and that he hadn't yet demonstrated the concrete achievements in peace and diplomacy that typically accompany a Nobel Peace Prize. Moreover, it raised questions about the selection due to the Obama administration’s involvement in wars in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen.

The 1994 prize went to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzak Rabin "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East". Kåre Kristiansen, a member of the Nobel Committee, resigned in protest at Arafat's award, citing his sponsorship of terrorism through the PLO and calling him the "world's most prominent terrorist".

The 2012 prize went to the European Union for having "over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe". Some former laureates disputed the award, claiming that the EU is "clearly not a champion of peace"!

If Trump won the prize (which he is desperately trying to do) he would be the fifth US President to do so, after Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama. Interestingly, Trump had this to say: "No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me."

Trump's desire to bring the Russia-Ukraine war to an end is also linked to his desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize. The Washington Post had commented on July 15 this year that "The road to President Donald Trump’s highly coveted Nobel Peace Prize might ultimately run through Ukraine".

Of course, the Russia-Ukraine war's complexity and the deeply entrenched positions of both sides, combined with the potential for shifts in the global political landscape, make ending the conflict a formidable challenge. Ukraine insists on reclaiming all its lost territories, including Crimea, and will not renounce its intention of becoming a NATO member. Russia, on the other hand, seeks sweeping political changes in Kyiv and aims to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. These fundamental disagreements create a deadlock that makes a negotiated settlement extremely difficult.

Against this background, while President Trump is pushing for a potential ceasefire agreement that could end Russia’s three-year war against Ukraine, the huge divergence between the Russian and Ukrainian positions will make it extremely difficult to bring the conflict to an end. Zelensky had already said that the Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska will achieve nothing, that Ukraine will not cede any territory and that any peace deal excluding Kiev would lead to "dead” solutions.

US officials have reportedly briefed their Ukrainian counterparts on a plan offered by Putin to halt the war in Ukraine in exchange for significant territorial concessions by Kyiv. This plan would require Ukraine to cede the eastern Donbas region — the majority of which is currently occupied by Russia — as well as Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014.

Zelensky has totally rejected the idea of making any territorial concessions and ceding any territory. In a video address after Trump’s announcement about the meeting with Putin, Zelensky said that Ukraine is “also ready to work together with President Trump,” but vowed that his people “will not give their land to the occupier.” Zelensky said: “Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine, are also decisions against peace. These are dead decisions. They will never work. And we all need a real, living peace that people will respect.” Thus, despite Trump's summit meeting with Putin this week, ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict is going to be extremely difficult due to the significant disagreements on key issues and a lack of trust between the two sides. It remains to be seen what the forthcoming meeting of Zelensky with Trump, accompanied by several topmost European leaders, has to offer in terms of peacebuilding.

The deep-seated mistrust between Russia and Ukraine, as well as between Russia and the West, makes it challenging to build confidence for negotiations. A "frozen conflict" scenario could be on the cards, where fighting ceases but the underlying issues remain unresolved. Ukraine's government and people are unlikely to accept ceding any territory to Russia, especially given the high political and human costs of such a concession. They also prioritise NATO membership as a security guarantee. On the other hand, Russia insists on maintaining control over territories it currently occupies and demands significant political concessions from Ukraine, including a neutral status that effectively excludes NATO membership. Neither side is willing to compromise on their core demands, which makes a peaceful resolution a highly complex challenge.

The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as consul general in New York. Views expressed are personal