Nobel Prize for Peace to Trump?
In the backdrop of a ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan, the USA President Donald Trump is being praised widely in brokering this agreement. Given this, he alone can and can’t be credited, because to attain peace needs parties and a mediator on same page. Therefore including Trump, Modi and Shahbaz deserve praise equally.
In a world accustomed to the roaring of guns and the silence of diplomacy, moments of calm often seem like miracles. The recent ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan has re-ignited the global conversation on peace, diplomacy, and the leaders who dare to imagine truce over triumph. In a curious development, murmurs have resurfaced around an old question: Could Donald Trump—yes, the divisive, polarizing U.S. President—deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?
The idea seems jarring at first. Trump, whose tenure as President is marked by bombastic rhetoric and geopolitical standoffs, is hardly the archetype of a peace icon. Yet, his diplomatic outreach with North Korea, the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab nations, and now his behind-the-scenes endorsement of upcoming Gaza peace talks in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have added complexity to the conversation.
Let’s begin closer to home. India and Pakistan agreeing to silence their guns along the Line of Control is no small event. For decades, the LoC has been a site of daily violence, displacing villagers, killing innocents, and derailing any chance of economic stability or cross-border cooperation. The ceasefire, though fragile and tentative, offers a ray of hope. The significance lies not only in military silence but in the possibility of mutual humanization—of seeing each other not merely as enemies but as wounded neighbours.
Quoting the Qur’an (8:61): “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it also and trust in Allah.” This spiritual principle finds deep resonance in a region where religion often divides but can also heal. From the Gita’s emphasis on non-violence to the Sermon on the Mount's blessing of the peacemakers, the ethical command to pursue peace transcends sectarian lines.
But such ceasefires cannot sustain themselves in political vacuum. The current opportunity must be seized by both nations to restart structured dialogue—on trade, education, environmental cooperation, and people-to-people contact. Peace, as Baruch Spinoza wrote, is not merely the absence of war but a virtue cultivated through justice and trust.
Meanwhile, on the global stage, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is preparing to host proposed peace talks on the Gaza crisis. Reports suggest that the conference may bring together representatives from Israel, the United States, and key Muslim countries, including Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and possibly even Iran under backchannel mediation. The talks, if successful, could mark a dramatic turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—a conflict where ceasefires have often been short-lived and heavily politicized.
What’s surprising is that Trump’s fingerprints still linger on this new diplomatic trajectory. His administration’s Abraham Accords normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. While criticized for sidelining the Palestinians, the accords shifted regional dynamics and laid the groundwork for broader engagement. Now, with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia floating the idea of inclusive Gaza talks, the framework may widen to encompass Palestinian agency—something long overdue.
This brings us back to the central question: can a man like Donald Trump, known for inflammatory speeches and deep national divisions, be seriously considered for a Nobel Peace Prize?
The Nobel Peace Prize is not a sanctification of personal virtue; it is a recognition of significant contribution to global peace. If Trump’s diplomacy indirectly enables a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, his Nobel nomination—already submitted multiple times by political allies—may not seem as outlandish.
Let’s be clear: Trump’s record on issues like climate change, racial justice, and multilateralism has drawn harsh criticism—and rightly so. But in international affairs, history often judges leaders not by their tone, but by their results. Henry Kissinger, a controversial figure in U.S. foreign policy, shared the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for a ceasefire in Vietnam that ultimately failed. If failure didn’t disqualify him, could unexpected success qualify Trump?
Whether it is the LoC or Gaza, today’s world is desperately searching for peace narratives. But peace cannot be monopolized. It must be democratized. We must stop associating peacemaking solely with saintly personalities and start appreciating the institutional, strategic, and even opportunistic factors that enable truces.
Saudi Arabia’s hosting of the Gaza talks is itself a shift toward multipolar diplomacy. While Riyadh has historically deferred to Washington, it is now attempting to assert its own vision of regional stability—one that may, paradoxically, benefit from previous U.S. deals under Trump.
India and Pakistan, too, could learn from this shift. Peace does not always come from romantic idealism. Sometimes, it emerges from fatigue, pragmatism, and the quiet rethinking of past mistakes. As Nelson Mandela famously said, “If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.”
In Kashmir, where people have lived through decades of violence, armed standoffs, the yearning for peace is neither naïve nor passive—it is revolutionary. The ceasefire offers a momentary glimpse of what life could be like if politics chose empathy over escalation. If the global momentum—from South Asia to the Middle East—does tilt toward dialogue, Kashmir must not be left out of that reckoning.
Religious texts urge not vengeance but vision. The Bible counsels: “Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14). The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said: “Do not wish to meet the enemy, but ask Allah for safety. But if you do meet them, then be firm.” The priority remains peace, not conquest.
If Donald Trump ends up with a Nobel Peace Prize, it will not be for who he is, but for what his actions, however flawed or politically driven, might enable. More importantly, if India and Pakistan continue their ceasefire, and if the Gaza talks yield a new roadmap for coexistence, the Nobel might be best awarded not to one man but to the global spirit of diplomacy that dares to try again.
The world does not need perfect men. It needs courageous decisions. May the ceasefire last. May the talks succeed. And may the peace we speak of not remain confined to ceremonies and columns, but echo in the lives of people—from Kupwara to Khan Younis, from India to Pakistan, and beyond.
Dr. Ashraf Zainabi, Teacher and Researcher
