A Western-centric gaze distorts Trump’s Nobel case. The world needs the balance of a multicentric vision.
“Blessed are the peacemakers in spirit, for theirs is the Nobel Prize.” (The Author)
Rarely has an award decision electrified the world like a World Cup final. Frenzied debates erupt across continents: Does US President Donald Trump merit the Nobel Peace Prize?
To both champions and critics, the answer seems a no-brainer. Yet beneath the surface lies a real conundrum – precisely why the question sparks endless controversy.
For Trump, the Nobel Peace Prize is a personal trophy, a matter of prestige, not principle; for the world, it counts because it is a powerful global symbol defining what kind of leadership and pursuit of peace is worth celebrating.
To reward Trump or not to reward him – this is a dilemma perfectly suited to the timeless art of disputation known as the quaestio. Latin for “question”, the name is as elegantly minimalist as calling Frank Sinatra simply “the Voice”.
Introduction: The art of disputation 101
The quaestio was the engine that powered the scholastic mind: structured, relentless, and dazzlingly precise.
In a veritable intellectual crescendo, a thinker began with a precise, probing question, engaged opposing views, measured the wisdom of authorities, and forged a final answer through disciplined reasoning – honed by conflict and crystalized into piercing, truthful, and enduring insight.
The quaestio, presented as a ring composition, prized clarity over chaos, reason over rhetoric. In this gladiatorial arena of the mind, argument was not about winning – it was about thinking better. Remarkably concise despite the question’s complexity, and mapping the full spectrum of pros and cons, it served as a perfect cheatsheet for analysts and debaters alike.
Today, the quaestio is an urgently needed tool for reasoning sharply amid the noisy spectacle of public maelstrom. Its enduring value is starkly evident in debates about Trump, where extreme personality, staged drama, and endless controversy fuel cognitive distortions – mental shortcuts that cloud perception and derail judgment.
Trump’s bombastic tweets, theatrical rallies, and shocking claims hijack attention, feeding vividness bias – the tendency to latch onto dramatic details while losing sight of the full picture. We fixate on the spectacle – the unruly hair, the provocative insult, the radical policy stunt – while substance, brought into relief by nuance, context, and consequence, fades from view.
In a hyper-toxic, politicized landscape and climate, the quaestio is a potent, indispensable antidote: Elevating intellect over instinct, it sharpens the mind to resist seduction and fosters deliberate, measured, and rigorous thinking – even amid heated debates, relentless polarization, sensational controversies, pervasive chaos, and total confusion.
Think of the obiectiones (“objections”) as the opening volley with the strongest arguments against the position the debater ultimately defends.
Often introduced with videtur (“it seems”), this section sets the stage, demonstrating serious engagement with opposing views; it clarifies the stakes, revealing the question’s complexity and tension; it primes the ground for credible resolution, making the subsequent thesis and refutations more convincing after the toughest challenges have been preempted. It also doubles as rehearsal for live debate, enabling the debater to foresee and counter the full range of objections.
However unpalatable it may be to Never-Trumpers, three interrelated reasons can be offered for why the US president might, in fact, merit the Nobel Peace Prize.
1. Cultivating harmony
The Bible says, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9, KJV). Those who support Trump may contend that where others ignited and prolonged wars, the US president acted as peacemaker-in-chief, fostering understanding and connection across divides through diplomatic breakthroughs.
In his first term, the US president facilitated the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations. In his second, Trump claimed to have “ended seven unendable wars” in only seven months – a boldly oxymoronic play on words, rhetorically sharp if nothing else.
2. Practicing restraint
Trump has seemingly demonstrated a capacity for measured action, reducing US military involvement. Supporters argue that this reduced violence and lowered the chance of unintended escalation.
He has prioritized withdrawing US troops from protracted, unpopular wars – most notably in Afghanistan and the broader Middle East – striking deals like the US–Taliban agreement to scale back America’s combat entanglements abroad.
3. Preserving equilibrium
Apparently, Trump also focused on maintaining stability and preventing escalation. In recent years, he has taken hardline stances and actions, such as striking Iranian nuclear sites and resorting to deterrence diplomacy, which supporters claim have held back Iran’s nuclear ambitions and prevented a greater regional arms race.
II. The guiding authority (sed contra)
The sed contra (“but on the contrary”) is a transitional component marking the dramatic pivot of the disputation: After enumerating all objections, the debater invokes authoritative sources as a striking counterpoint, delivering decisive words of wisdom that elegantly pave the way to the ultimate answer.
What authority could be better suited to the question at hand than Alfred Nobel himself, the creator of the eponymous prize?
When Alfred Nobel read his own obituary condemning him as “the merchant of death,” he saw the looming verdict of history. Deeply shocked and full of remorse, he set out to leave a different legacy, one that would celebrate reconciliation rather than destruction.
Channeling his guilt into generosity, he devoted part of his fortune to establishing the Peace Prize as a moral counterbalance to the instruments of destruction he had invented – awarding those who build bridges instead of bombs.
In drafting his will in 1895, the chemist and industrialist bequeathed not just a fortune, but a moral compass for the ages to the world. Beyond recognizing the “greatest benefit on mankind,” as his other prizes were also meant to do, Nobel stipulated that the Peace Prize should honor “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
It was an idealistic formula – part moral vision, part political challenge – designed to reward those who turn power toward peace. More than a century later, it remains a formidable test.
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee interprets that guidance each year, weighing nominations from parliamentarians, academics, former laureates, and other qualified proposers. Even though its deliberations are sealed for fifty years, the resulting pattern is clear: The prize recognizes not transactions but transformations.
Measured against Alfred Nobel’s litmus test, Donald Trump’s record, from his first presidency through his return to power, offers an instructive contrast between ambition and achievement, spectacle and substance – marked by flashes of diplomacy but little lasting peace.
1. Fraternity between nations
Trump’s supporters point to the Abraham Accords, summits with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, and recent ceasefire claims in the Caucasus and Gaza as evidence of bold statecraft. Yet fraternity demands trust, not just photo ops.
Trump’s withdrawals from the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate accord, and other multilateral agreements frayed alliances and deepened suspicion. “America First” often meant America alone, eroding the cooperative spirit Nobel sought to honor.
Whereas the inventor turned philanthropist envisioned fraternity among nations, Trump preached dominance over them, wrapping foreign policy in slogans of supremacy and exclusion. Trump’s self-centered, unilateralist diplomacy may produce lucrative deals, but not enduring peace.
2. Abolition or reduction of armies
Trump also fails Nobel’s second test. US military spending and arms sales grew sharply under his watch, while his administration dismantled key arms-control treaties such as the INF and Open Skies accords.
Despite talk of new disarmament initiatives, none has materialized. His so-called end to “endless wars” largely substituted drones and contractors for soldiers – a shift in tactics, not philosophy.
3. Promotion of peace congresses
Trump staged summits that dominated headlines, but Nobel’s “peace congresses” implied enduring frameworks for mediation and trust. No such institutions emerged under Trump’s watch. His diplomacy was personalistic, episodic, and often transactional – driven by optics rather than structure.
In conclusion, measured against Nobel’s will, Trump is a showman of peace rather than its architect. His initiatives produced headlines, not harmony; leverage, not equality.
By the 1895 standard – international brotherhood, disarmament, and enduring institutions – Trump falls dramatically short of Alfred Nobel’s vision. Granting him the Peace Prize would leave the Nobel Committee exposed to future embarrassment at the hands of a decorated and unhinged figure.
The Peace Prize was meant to transcend power and vanity, not validate and glorify them; far from a medal for treacherous self-interest, it demands nobility and humility.
In an ironic twist, Trump disqualifies himself from the Nobel Prize precisely because he craves it too intensely – his obsession becoming its own undoing. In contrast, a leader indifferent to accolades faces virtually no limits.
The harder we clutch desire, the more it slips through our fingers. Who, seeking nothing but canonization, became a saint? An anxious lover repels the beloved; a golfer overanalyzes the perfect swing and botches it; a writer forces inspiration only to meet a blank page – all proof that obsession often backfires.
Napoleon’s relentless hunger for power pushed him to conquer all of Europe, yet the very intensity of his ambition led him into the Russian winter and the ruins of exile, his dreams undone by their own gravity.
Determined to resist political pressure from figure like Trump, the Nobel Committee would likely uphold this guiding principle: “Peace prizes aren’t for performers. They’re for those who bleed quietly so others don’t have to.”
The inventor who once armed the world dreamed, at last, of disarming its pride. To honor Trump would be to reload it.
The respondeo (“I answer”) is the heart of the argument, settling the debate – the author’s direct, answer to the question posed, synthesizing authority and reason in a coherent, logical argument. At its best, this final verdict demonstrates intellectual mastery by showing how complex or conflicting points can be harmonized, turning scattered contention into clarity.
The overall verdict is clear and simple: Trump is literally “ig-nobel”. Measured against both a traditional and innovative yardstick, Trump has failed to live up to Alfred Nobel’s three-fold ideals and thus does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.
The time-honored standard: The traditional interpretation of Nobel’s triad
Though few Nobel Peace Prize winners have ever fulfilled all three of Alfred Nobel’s original criteria – fraternity between nations, disarmament, and the promotion of peace congresses – the triad remains the moral core of the prize.
Past Nobel laureates like Bertha von Suttner and Léon Bourgeois embodied the sublime triptych fully; others, from Martin Luther King Jr. to Malala Yousafzai, reflected only parts of it, as the Nobel Committee broadened “peace” to include justice, human rights, and humanitarian work.
But Donald Trump, as a head of state wielding armies and treaties, carries a unique responsibility to uphold the full spirit of Nobel’s will, and must be measured by its complete standard, not a modern, flexible reading. Nobel certainly wrote his will with leader like him in mind – those who hold the power to wage or restrain war.
And by that measure, the record is unforgiving: Trump’s diplomacy has generated headlines, but fraternity has frayed, disarmament stalled, and peace institutions weakened. The will’s words still stand – and by them, Trump falls short.
An innovative yardstick: Enlightened multilateralism 2.0
We have now reached the innermost core and crux of the quaestio, central in place and essence alike. At this critical juncture, the question of Trump’s Nobel worthiness comes most sharply into focus.
Viewing Trump solely through a Western-centric lens yields a one-sided assessment of his Nobel prospects. Serving as a counterweight to the faltering Western order, a new paradigm – one that rejects destructive liberalism and embraces the traditional East – offers a fairer measure: I call it “nation-focused multicentricity” – enlightened multilateralism 2.0 – grounded morally in tradition, politically in equality among sovereign, peace-forging nations, and economically in what might be termed a “transeurasian growth triangle”.
By innovatively reimagining peace as a harmonious concert of sovereign nations in genuine fraternity, this new model could advance Alfred Nobel’s objectives in a post-modern context.
Measured against the standard of multicentric mutual sovereignty, Trump once again falls short. A self-serving nationalist strongman, he exalts his own nation and coerces others, turning patriotism into rivalry and replacing fraternity with force. Rather than fostering harmony, his notorious “bullying” breeds tension, stoking regional and global sparks that threaten to ignite the next great war – in essence, sowing precisely the discord the Nobel ideal sought to avert.
Refuting the counterarguments (ad obiectiones)
Think of the ad obiectiones – “(sc. replies) to objections” – as the debater’s mic drop that closes the argumentative loop: “Here’s why your objections don’t stick.” This final round of meticulous rebuttal ensures that every counterargument is carefully considered and resolved, transforming each doubt into an opportunity to reinforce the credibility of the conclusion. Once more, the debater demonstrates rigor, showcasing both thoroughness and logical precision.
Proponents may claim that Donald Trump’s actions merit the Nobel Peace Prize, yet a closer examination exposes profound shortcomings. In diplomacy, his initiatives often produced spectacle rather than lasting understanding; in military affairs, his posture favored coercion over restraint; in matters of international stability, his policies amplified tension rather than fostering fraternity.
Reply to objection 1: Cultivating harmony
Quotes from Scripture alone are no proof – even the Devil cited the Bible when he tempted Jesus in the desert.
Consider this: The Bible even says, “There is no God” (Psalm 53:1, KJV). Context matters, though – the startling claim is introduced by the words, “The fool hath said in his heart”!
The aforementioned peacemaker verse must be read alongside the opening of the Beatitudes: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3, KJV). “Poor in spirit” has many layers of meaning, but one is freedom from self-centeredness – a quality Trump clearly does not exhibit, his pride remaining a defining trademark. Beyond this inner disposition, his actions have achieved little more than a fragile calm at best.
Trump’s approach to diplomacy has been characterized by transactional dealings and a disregard for multilateral institutions, raising serious questions about the sustainability and inclusivity of his peace initiatives.
The Abraham Accords, often cited as a hallmark of Trump’s diplomatic success, facilitated normalization between Israel and several Arab nations. However, critics contend that these agreements overlooked the Palestinian issue, potentially entrenching regional divisions rather than fostering comprehensive peace. The omission has been cited as a factor contributing to subsequent escalations in the region, including the launch of Israel’s war on Gaza in 2023.
Similarly, the economic normalization agreements between Serbia and Kosovo, while historic, have been criticized for their superficial nature. Kosovo’s independence, declared in 2008, remains unrecognized by Serbia and several other countries, rendering the agreements less impactful than portrayed
Similar doubts linger as regards the other wars that Trump claimed he has “ended” – including a non-existing war between Albania and Azerbaijan – given the emphasis on quick-win ceasefires without a resolution of the root causes of the conflicts.
While Trump emphasized reducing US military involvement, actual developments on the ground revealed glaring shortcomings.
Trump’s administration professed to reduce U.S. military involvement, most notably through the U.S.-Taliban agreement. However, the subsequent rapid collapse of the Afghan government in 2021 and the resurgence of the Taliban highlighted the agreement’s lack of foresight and its failure to ensure lasting stability.
Additionally, Trump’s approach to military intervention has been inconsistent. In 2020, he ordered the extrajudicial killing of Qasem Soleimani, a top Iranian military commander widely considered the second-most powerful figure in the Islamic Republic. Legal experts deemed the strike unlawful. While advocating restraint, his administration later authorized airstrikes on Iranian targets, escalating tensions in the Middle East and contradicting the principles of de-escalation.
The administration also contributed to war that Israel launched on Gaza in 2023 by providing financial support, weapons, and diplomatic cover to the Jewish state. In his war on drugs, Trump opened a new front by targeting suspected drug traffickers in international waters.
Domestically, Trump’s threats to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops domestically raised concerns about the politicization of military power and the potential erosion of democratic norms.
Reply to objection 3. Preserving equilibrium
Trump also made several disruptive moves that unsettled fragile geopolitical equilibria. Far from acting as an integrator, he often sowed division rather than fostering peace. His disregard for expert intelligence and preference for unilateral military action have been cited as key factors contributing to increased instability.
Trump’s administration took a hardline stance on Iran, enacting policies criticized for exacerbating regional instability, prompting Iran to accelerate its nuclear program rather than deterring it.
Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 – a major shift in US foreign policy – and subsequent actions undermined multilateral efforts to address nuclear proliferation, raising concerns about the long-term effectiveness of his approach.
Trump’s aforementioned decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities in 2025, despite intelligence assessments suggesting Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, has been labeled as “patently illegal” by critics. But this unilateral action not only violated international law, but it also undermined efforts aimed at regional stability.
In conclusion, while the supporters of Trump, a convicted felon, are highlighting certain diplomatic achievements, a comprehensive evaluation reveals a pattern of actions that often undermine long-term peace and stability, contradicting the ideals upheld by the Nobel Peace Prize.
In particular, Trump’s approach often prioritizes short-term gains and personal accolades over enduring diplomatic solutions and adherence to international norms, while policy implementation is plagued by glaring inconsistencies. For these reasons, his candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize cannot be endorsed.
Conclusion: In search of multicentric statecraft
From the man who invented and produced dynamite was born a prize for those who defuse conflict, ensuring that Nobel’s name would stand not for war’s instruments but for peace’s possibility.
His Peace Prize honors restraint as much as initiative, and structure as much as style. To merit it, a leader must be a true integrator and do more than broker deals: He must cultivate trust, protect freedom (including media freedom), uphold the rule of law domestically and internationally, dismantle the machinery of war, promote global cooperation, and nurture the institutions that sustain peace.
By that enduring measure, Trump – explosive in nature, yet far from tamed – remains well outside Nobel’s design. His mindset of blunt domination clashes with the integrative skills required to lead a balanced, multicentric world, one that prizes restraint over dominance and shared responsibility over endless unilateral intervention. In this emerging global arena, Gordian knots cannot be cut with a sword, nor can an egg be made to stand upright simply by cracking its base.
Who, then, would be a worthy contender for the Nobel Peace Prize – a leader capable of meeting the demands of a “multicentric statesman” acting as peacemaker-in-chief?
In today’s era of enlightened multilateralism 2.0 – centering on cooperation of equal, sovereign nations – Sheikh Mohammed Al Thani, Qatar’s prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, stands out as a competent peace-leader for a complex, turbulent world.
Bridging East and West and embodying resilient courage, he has mediated between Hamas and Israel, even after his country was bombed by the Jewish state. Qatar’s hosting of Al Jazeera, a fearless media voice challenging Western dominance, adds to the symbolic stature.
Greta Thunberg, by contrast, advances peace through global civic activism, championing green transformation and Palestinian sovereignty, influencing states from outside formal power structures. Her courageous activism – from embarking on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza to confronting Israeli patrols – reflects principled conviction matched with bold action, even when it risks alienating her supporters.
Both personalities fit the new paradigm – one through multicentric statesmanship and diplomacy, the other through transnational advocacy and principled pressure – highlighting how a multicentric view expands the definition of what constitutes meaningful contributions to peace.
────────────────────── ⁂ ──────────────────────
Haunted by the power of his own inventions, Alfred Nobel, though Swedish, placed the Peace Prize in Norwegian hands to save it from the grasp of nationalism. Peace, he believed, must stand above power and pride.
In his time, Sweden and Norway shared a crown but not a conscience; Sweden was proud and militarized, Norway smaller and more liberal. Nobel, weary of nationalism and wary of Swedish militarism, believed Norwegians might judge peace with cleaner hands, unswayed by nationalism and political vanity.
What began as a subtle rebuke of Swedish militarism became a lasting symbol – that peace belongs not to the mighty, but to the impartial. By separating peace from power, he made Oslo the world’s conscience and ensured his final invention exploded not cities, but the boundaries of nationalism.
A century later, awarding that prize to Donald Trump – a man who exalts nationalism over humanity, glorifies dominance, and treats diplomacy as mere transaction and spectacle – would, in a sad irony, invert Nobel’s intent and desecrate his vision.
To honor Trump would not only distort Nobel’s legacy; it would demonstrate that even the world’s most valuable moral award is not immune to the politics of power, but instead dragged back into the very politics that the inventor of dynamite sought to transcend.
Nobel envisioned peace as humility in power and fraternity in difference. Trump’s diplomacy, shrewd yet self-serving, speaks another language – one of leverage, not reconciliation. In the end, Oslo must remember: The Nobel Peace Prize was meant for those who transcend borders, not for those who build them.
