The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize was announced last week, and when news of human rights pioneer Navi Pillay broke, unsurprisingly President Trump cried foul.
At a rally in Syracuse, New York, Trump said the award was “given out to a liberal person who works at the United Nations who nobody has ever heard of.”
In response, Pillay joked about sharing the prize with Trump, before a press conference. Trump said that the prize not being awarded to him was an “indelible stain on the country of Norway.”
Maybe the Nobel Committee has made a terrible mistake. I mean, Pillay, a woman whose qualifications apparently include (if a basic Google search is to be trusted, since, you know, nobody has ever heard of her) a lifetime of defending human rights and strengthening international law, most certainly does not deserve the prize more than Trump.
It’s narrow-minded thinking, to say the least. Pillay’s record is suspicious. She supposedly fought apartheid and served on international courts, and helped establish that rape could constitute genocide, which, all are admirable achievements, to be sure, but where is the branding? I mean, as our great, spraytanned head of state said, nobody has ever heard of her.
I mean, has Navi Pillay ever announced her own greatness with huge capital letters upon the façade of a building?
Our president Donald Trump understands that peace must be marketed aggressively, and sometimes with missiles.
Consider the puzzling war in Iran, which is obviously the right thing to do, even if many of us here and abroad are left scratching our heads as to why. Diplomacy requires of it listening, preparation and a degree of understanding as to what happens afterward, whereas war allows a skipping directly to the dramatic footage. So why spend months preventing a catastrophe when you can create one and then demand credit for discussing how to stop it? Call it “entrepreneurial peacemaking”: you manufacture the demand, then offer up the solution. Nobel-worthy work, right?
According to reports, Trump has promised no attacks on Iran before the November midterms, but also, there’s been no detailed plan for exiting the war. Lesser leaders might bind military decisions to a durable settlement, but our president understands that world peace also should consult the campaign calendar. Nothing can reassure a frightened populace quite like learning its immediate future has been penciled in around House and Senate races.
So, to this I say, the Nobel Committee should appreciate such laudable restraint: a man who announces when he will refrain from bombing deserves at least as much credit as someone who never started bombing in the first place.
Also: let us not overlook Trump’s contributions to domestic tranquility through ICE. According to Amnesty International (you know, that meddlesome organization devoted to human rights around the world) a recent investigation documented racial profiling, arbitrary detention, unjustified force and denial of due process during the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations, which it referred to as a widespread climate of fear. Clearly, those do gooders at Amnesty International failed to recognize peace arriving in tactical equipment.
A neighborhood where people are afraid to leave their homes can be remarkably quiet. Just think – no noisy gatherings or pandemonium in the streets. Surely that counts as tranquility.
The reportage around ICE also includes information about agents operating in masks without identification. How thoughtful is this? I mean, traditional human rights advocates insist on accountability, but anonymity spares citizens the exhausting burden of knowing whom to hold accountable. It’s governmental efficiency with a face covering.
Nobel laureate Pillay has spent her career insisting that power must answer to law, whereas Trump’s approach offers a refreshing shortcut: just let power explain that whatever it just did was absolutely necessary, and everyone can go ahead and applaud.
Due process takes forever, after all. There are hearings, lawyers, evidence and tiresome distinctions between what officials suspect and what they can prove. The Peace Prize should reward a leader who is willing to clear away such administrative hogwash.
The Nobel Committee’s real error was in judging achievements instead of appetite. Where Pillay may have devoted decades to justice (again, if that is to be believed from what is out there about her, since nobody has heard of her), there is no evidence to suggest that she has wanted the Nobel Prize as much as Trump. Has she made the world sufficiently aware of the injustice of her not having one prior to being awarded? I could not find any evidence of such.
Trump, on the other hand, has done the heavy emotional lifting of congratulating himself for all of his mighty achievements, and the absolute least that Norway could do is provide the hardware.
For goodness sake, the committee should just admit it made a mistake and award Trump the prize and make it enormous. Have ICE escort it to the ceremony and schedule the presentation during a pause between Truth Social rants, um, I mean policy pronouncements. Also: have an epic gala reception where all attendees are treated to a meal of two Big Macs, Diet Coke and a beautiful slice of chocolate cake for dessert. Kid Rock and Lee Greenwood can co-headline the entertainment portion of the event.
Pillay, on the other hand, can be given something suitable for her lesser accomplishments. Maybe a thank-you note on some really nice stationery and a nice gift card to either Costco or Cheddar’s would suffice.
Chris Edwards is editor of the Tyler County Booster, a sister newspaper in the Polk County Publishing Group. He can be reached at cedwards@polkcountypublishing.com.
