Regardless of who the Norwegian Nobel Committee chooses, its pick may be interpreted as direct or indirect criticism of the Republican billionaire.
The head of the Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO), Haakon Gjerlow, said the committee must ask itself whether the Nobel risks causing the recipient more “harm rather than good”, given the reactions that could emerge from the White House.
Last year, the prize went to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, a choice generally considered palatable to Trump.
Machado even gave him her Nobel gold medal, judging he deserved it after the capture of President Nicolas Maduro — though she failed to obtain his political backing in exchange.
The reasons given by the Nobel Committee for choosing Peace Prize winners have changed substantially since 1901, shifting from promoting peace to defending human rights in a trend that gained momentum during the Cold War, according to an AFP analysis.
The Nobel committee meanwhile says it is not swayed by external pressures.
“Of course we have to discuss it, but it’s not like that influences the discussions in the room and decisions that come out,” the secretary of the committee, Kristian Berg Harpviken, told AFP.
– Consensus, or not? –
Choosing a laureate who enjoys broad consensus, such as an individual or organisation working to protect children or humanitarian efforts, would be less likely to stoke Trump’s ire, experts say.
That could include the Save the Children charity and Ukraine’s Mykola Kuleba, who campaigns for the return of kids illegally taken to Russia — a cause close to the heart of Trump’s wife Melania.
Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms (ERR), a vast network of volunteers risking their lives to help people facing the double threat of war and hunger, could also be a laureate.
