The Nobel Peace Prize is meant to be one of the highest honors in the world, awarded to individuals or organizations that have made significant contributions to peace, diplomacy, and the resolution of conflicts. Established by Alfred Nobel, the prize is supposed to recognize efforts that promote reconciliation, disarmament, and the prevention of war. Past recipients have included renowned figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, and Nelson Mandela—people whose legacies are synonymous with peace and human rights. The criteria for awarding the prize emphasize tangible results, lasting impact, and a genuine commitment to ending conflicts. However, in recent years, the Nobel Committee’s decisions have raised serious questions about whether the prize is still awarded based on merit or if it has become just another tool of political influence. Nowhere is this controversy clearer than in the case of Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.
In 2019, Abiy Ahmed was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in brokering peace with Eritrea, ending a decades-long border conflict. At the time, the international community praised him as a reformer and peacemaker. But what followed was the exact opposite of what the Nobel Prize is supposed to represent. Within a year of receiving the award, Abiy launched a devastating war in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, leading to the deaths of over a million people. Reports from human rights organizations and journalists revealed horrifying atrocities—massacres, sexual violence, ethnic cleansing, and famine used as a weapon of war. The Tigray conflict became one of the deadliest in modern history, yet Abiy Ahmed remained a Nobel laureate, protected by the same global institutions that had once praised him.
The so-called peace deal with Eritrea, the very reason Abiy was awarded the Nobel, was never real. It was a temporary political maneuver, a public relations stunt to gain international recognition. Today, relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea are back to where they were before the agreement. Flights between the two countries have been suspended, and tensions are rising once again. Even Mulatu Teshome, Ethiopia’s former president and an ally of Abiy, recently wrote an article on Al Jazeera suggesting that another war is on the horizon. Ethiopia’s embassy in Asmara doesn’t even have an ambassador anymore, a clear sign that diplomatic relations are collapsing. The Nobel Committee awarded Abiy for achieving peace, but in reality, his actions only delayed conflict, not resolved it.
As the full scale of Abiy’s atrocities became undeniable, Ethiopians themselves began demanding that his Nobel Prize be revoked. Activists, journalists, and even members of the Ethiopian diaspora called for the Nobel Committee to strip him of the honor, arguing that a man responsible for genocide should not be celebrated as a peacemaker. Petitions were signed, protests were held, and the international outcry grew louder. The Nobel Prize was meant to symbolize moral integrity and lasting peace, yet it remained in the hands of a leader who had plunged his country into war and bloodshed. If the Nobel Committee wants to maintain any credibility, it must revoke Abiy Ahmed’s award. Keeping it only devalues the prize and disrespects the millions of Ethiopians who suffered under his rule.
Now, compare this to Donald Trump. Unlike Abiy, Trump never initiated a war. Instead, he focused on peace and diplomacy. He became the first U.S. president to hold direct talks with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, attempting to bring stability to the Korean Peninsula after decades of hostility. While the Nobel Committee celebrated Abiy for a peace deal that collapsed, they ignored Trump’s historic efforts to ease tensions between North and South Korea. He also played a key role in brokering the Abraham Accords, which led to diplomatic normalization between Israel and several Arab nations—a massive step toward peace in the Middle East. These were real, concrete achievements, yet the Nobel Committee refused to recognize them.
Now, as Trump has returned to the presidency, he is once again proving why he was the true peace candidate all along. Under his leadership, negotiations between Russia and the U.S. have begun in Saudi Arabia, marking a significant step toward ending the ongoing war in Ukraine. Further diplomatic talks are planned, and there is a growing sense that a resolution is possible—something that never happened under the previous administration. Trump has long stated that he could bring peace between Russia and Ukraine, and now, as president again, he is actively working toward that goal. While others fueled the conflict with endless military aid, Trump is using diplomacy to stop the bloodshed.
Beyond his foreign policy achievements, Trump fought against the deep state, the corrupt mainstream media, and global organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO), which mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic. While other world leaders blindly followed WHO directives, Trump challenged their misinformation and pushed for an independent approach. He prioritized America’s interests and refused to bow to the corrupt globalist agenda. Instead of being praised for his leadership, he was constantly attacked by the media and political establishment—yet his policies resulted in one of the most stable foreign policy records in recent U.S. history.
So, the question remains: Why does Abiy Ahmed, a war criminal and a genocidal dictator, still hold a Nobel Peace Prize, while Donald Trump, a president who worked tirelessly to prevent wars and broker peace, was ignored? The answer is simple—politics. The Nobel Committee is no longer about true peace. It is about rewarding leaders who fit a certain globalist narrative, even if their actions contradict the very definition of peace. If the Nobel Prize truly stood for what it claims to represent, it would be taken away from Abiy Ahmed and rightfully given to Donald Trump.
Comments
Post a Comment