Apparently if you ask that question to South Korean President Moon Jae-in, the answer would be in the affirmative. The reason for his answer involves last week’s summit between North and South Korea with the goal of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula. Clearly the statement by Moon Jae-in may be premature, and not without controversy, but it’s worth considering whether a true end to the Korean War is an outcome worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Here’s the report on this from Sky News:

“President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. What we need is only peace,” Mr Moon told a meeting of senior secretaries, according to an official who briefed media.

During the first inter-Korean summit in more than a decade, both leaders stepped into North and South Korea before agreeing to a “complete denuclearisation” of their peninsula.

In floating the idea of a Trump Nobel, Mr Moon was responding to a comment by Lee Hee-ho, the widow of late South Korean President Kim Dae-jung.

She said Mr Moon deserved to win the prize in recognition of his peace efforts, leading him to say Mr Trump should get it.

In January, Mr Moon said Mr Trump “deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks. It could be a resulting work of the US-led sanctions and pressure”.

The summit between Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in is historic, make no mistake. However, until we see some concrete moves by the north to truly disarm and join the world community, can we call it a success before then? The Washington Post points out the obvious questions surrounding the current situation and President Trump’s upcoming meeting with the North Korean leader:

Trump has achieved more concrete progress on North Korea than Obama had more generally for his Nobel. (Even Obama acknowledged that the award, which was given less than nine months into his presidency, was not a “recognition of my own accomplishments,” but rather more about his aspirational rhetoric.) But we thus far have only handshakes, a hug and verbally expressed goals when it comes to peace between North and South Korea. North Korea’s pledged actions — including one to dismantle its nuclear test site in public view — are still just that, but there is considerable optimism, even among Trump’s critics. His administration’s efforts to win unprecedented sanctions against North Korea have pretty clearly played a role; whether his tough talk about “Little Rocket Man” and obliterating North Korea did is less certain, as is what might come of his meeting with the country’s leader, Kim Jong Un.

But the Nobel talk is very much on. Trump’s supporters chanted “Nobel!” at a campaign-style rally he held on Saturday night. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Friday: “We’re not there yet, but if this happens President Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.” Rep. Luke Messer (R-Ind.) has said he plans to formally nominate Trump for the award.

And the effort got a nonpartisan push Monday from South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who responded to talk of his own potential Nobel by saying it should go to Trump instead. “President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. The only thing we need is peace,” he said.

The fact that the Nobel talk is coming from these sources is really no surprise. Moon, more than perhaps any other world leader, has gone out of his way to flatter Trump. Messer is running in a tight Indiana Senate primary that has become a fight over who is most like Trump. And Graham has outwardly admitted that his transition from a top Republican Trump critic to a cheerleader is as much about political expedience as conviction.

Surely Trump loves this kind of talk since it elevates him to a new level, perhaps as a means to compete with President Obama who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize at the beginning of his term before really accomplishing anything. “See, I won a Nobel Prize, too!”

It’s probably all talk and nothing much will come of the Nobel Prize chatter but, to quote the President, “we’ll see.”

Exit question: Maybe the World War 3 searches were a little premature? Or, maybe not?

8 COMMENTS

  1. Love him or hate him, President Trump has done what no other president before him for almost 70 years has done. Former presidents have done nothing but appease the North Korean regime. If it took the blunt candor and bluster of President Trump to bring the Pillsbury Dough Boy to his senses, then I would say it was worth it.?

    By the same token if a peace deal is signed between the Korea’s after an armistice of 65 years, then if President Trump isn’t worthy of a Nobel peace prize I can’t think of anyone who is.?

  2. According to Nobel rules, names must be submitted by February First to be considered for that year’s prize. Just sayin’.

      • If the deadline for nominations is Feb 1, and Obama took office January 21, that would be a quick decision. But, of course, the actual choice is months later. The award was apparently given more for the change in attitude and direction. Some, such as Nelson Mandella, considered it premature. Others have said that Obama was involved in too much military action, especially drones.

  3. I wonder if Trump was to get the Nobel Peace prize if he tell them where they could put it. Just saying.

  4. Trump wants the Nobel prize with all his being but it probably isn’t in the cut of the cards. World leaders see Trump in a totally different view than the one offered by the nine Republican senators who placed Trump’s name on the Nobel Nominee’s list.

    While Trump harrumphs that other countries must shed their nukes, he is heavily investing in a new generation of super weapons for America’s nuclear arsenal. Trump’s action has touched off a news arms race with Russia. These are not options for world peace, making Trump’s demands on North Korea fraught with hypocrisy. North Korean Foreign Minister, Kim Kye-gwan, warned “that North Korea could pull out of a summit with President Trump, accusing Washington of harbouring sinister intentions. The White House and the Department of State including John Bolton, White House national security adviser, are letting loose the assertions of a so-called Libya mode of nuclear abandonment: complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation, total decommissioning of nuclear weapons, missiles, biochemical weapons, while talking about a formula of abandoning nuclear weapons first, compensating afterwards. This is not an expression of intention to address the issue through dialogue”.

Comments are closed.