Trump is angry that he didn't win. But in tribute to Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Committee approved his war against Venezuela and continued his MAGA humiliation of Europe.
Maria Corina Machado appears on Fox News after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
(Fox News)
Donald Trump's narcissism is truly a force of nature, a black hole that consumes everything around it and can never be filled. His need is insatiable: no humiliating praise can be effusive enough, no defeat of his political enemies can be complete enough, and no worldly achievement can give him a moment of satisfaction. Now, having won the presidency twice, Trump has his eye on a new prize, all the more coveted because, like the title of Commander in Chief, it was once held by Barack Obama: the Nobel Peace Prize.
On Thursday Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was “obsessed with the award” and had been openly lobbying for it for months, with his lust so obvious that “domestic supporters and international leaders seeking his favor have joined him in a high-profile campaign.” Trump said he deserved the award because he “solved eight wars in nine months.” (In a twist of fate that will shock no one, it turns out that that's not true.) And it's wide according to rumors Part of the reason Trump engineered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was to get the deal done in time for this year's last-minute Nobel Prize.
But on Friday, Trump received disappointing news that he had been snubbed. Instead, the prize went to Maria Corina Machado, a Venezuelan politician who challenged the autocratic regime of his country's President Nicolas Maduro. Some in the White House were unable to hide their bitterness. White House Communications Director Stephen Schung grumbled“The Nobel Committee has proven that it puts politics before peace.” Richard Grenell, Trump's ambassador to Venezuela, grinned“The Nobel Prize died many years ago.”
Current number
These mocking words are extremely short-sighted. While Trump receiving the Peace Prize would have been the best outcome for the White House, Machado was the second best possible outcome. And this was not a small consolation prize.
Over the past two months, the Trump administration has become increasingly militant towards Venezuela, repeatedly attacking Venezuelan vessels with unproven (and legally irrelevant) claims that they were involved in drug smuggling. All indications are that the United States is preparing for war for regime change. Ironically, Machado's Nobel Peace Prize makes this impending war more likely.
A New York Times title caught the irony: “Peace Prize winner supported Trump's military actions in the Caribbean.” To the famous Orwellian slogan “War is peace” we can now add a new variation: “The peace prize justifies war.”
Machado's award can be seen as a result of Trump administration diplomacy and a green light for war. Last fall, Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio, then-Sen. signed letter nominating Machado for the Nobel Peace Prize. The letter was signed by seven Republican lawmakers, including Michael Waltz, who is now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations after a controversial and short term as Trump's national security adviser. These Republicans supported Machado because she shared in principle their vision of counter-revolution and neoliberal restoration in Venezuela. Among other things, she is committed privatization the country's huge oil reserves.
Having received the prize, Machado cleverly published on social media site X that she wants to “dedicate this award to the suffering people of Venezuela and to President Trump for his strong support of our cause!” Speaking on Fox News on Friday, Machado said Trump “deserves” the award for his self-proclaimed efforts to end eight wars and protect democracy in Venezuela.
Machado's democracy promotion, although based on US military intervention, deserves skepticism. Talking about Democracy Now! on Friday, Yale University historian Greg Grandin described her acceptance of the Nobel Prize was called “a truly shocking choice”. Grandin noted that Machado supported the coup against democratically elected President Hugo Chavez in 2002. Her hardline stance on economic issues has both complicated and divided the anti-Maduro coalition. And the fact that she has praised both the bombing of Venezuelan ships and welcomed further American intervention in Venezuela is likely to strengthen Maduro's power, since it supports his claim that the opposition is filled with American proxies. Grandin also noted that if the Nobel committee wanted to legitimize the anti-Maduro opposition, they could give the award to feminist leaders who both criticize the regime and oppose US intervention.
In addition to winning Trump's support, Machado has repeatedly found alliances with authoritarian leaders such as El Naib Bukele in El Salvador, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel. In February she was virtual participant at a conference in Madrid called “Patriots of Europe”, a meeting of far-right groups steeped in racism.
The danger with Machado's victory is that she can now use her prestige as a Nobel Peace Prize winner to rally mass support for the war for regime change. It is noteworthy that the award ceremony entailed praise from Barack Obama and in pages from Washington Post. Centrist liberals have already I'm reluctant to criticize Trump's campaign to bomb Venezuelan ships is likely to be even more fearful now. As with George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, a bipartisan consensus could support regime change in Venezuela. Allowing a Nobel Peace Prize would make such a war more likely.
Machado's Nobel Peace Prize is part of a broader pattern of European elites aligning themselves with Trump's foreign policy. Trump's “America First” rhetoric and threats of a trade war appear to have spooked NATO allies. In theory, this fear could motivate the European ruling class to strive for a more independent, post-American foreign policy. In practice, Europeans have instead chosen to humiliate themselves as much as possible in the hope of winning Trump's favor.
As Martin Sandu marked V Financial Times in August,
When Trump returned to the White House, European leaders seemed unconvinced about how to handle him. By now, their strategic choice is clear. This is compromise, not confrontation, accompanied by sycophantic rhetoric loudly praising Trump's mastery of peace and deal-making. The question is whether the loss of self-respect was worth it. Talk to those close to decision-making and the refrain is: “No one here is naive.” On the contrary, it is pragmatism.
Popular
“swipe left below to view more authors”Swipe →
On issue after issue, be it trade or military spending, European leaders have deferred to Trump. This policy of subjugation has not had the desired effect in containing Trump. Rather, it only emboldened him, because his thirst for demonstrating dominance is limitless. If Trump does rush into a new war, European allies will become his willing accomplices.
Trump is stupid to think he should win the Nobel Peace Prize. He has all the power and glory he could want because the people who theoretically could have stopped him decided to give up.
More from Nation
The struggle for true Palestinian liberation is far from over.
We in Gaza will remember the martyrs – those who died teaching, telling, healing, caring for people and surviving. We will keep their memory like fire in our hearts. And we'll start again…
At a sombre Labor Party conference in Liverpool, disillusionment with Keir Starmer gave way to open talk about a successor – and the name on everyone's lips was Andy Burnham.
Activists say authorities are misusing the justice system to silence dissent and freeze speech.
Through the obedience of Congress, the complicity of the Supreme Court, and the compromise of media corporations, Trump has paved a clear path to international irrelevance.
The world before October 7, 2023 is a distant memory. But we continue, driven by the determination that this land will once again be a place of life.
