Wars and peace awards

August 5, 2025: Nobel Peace Prize is never shy of controversies, to be fair to Donald Trump if he’s officially in the mix this year.

Politicisation and Nobel judges allegedly trying to appease big-name and influential candidates are key reasons why some years saw more criticism than nods of approval.

In 1973, the prize went to a North Vietnamese communist leader and late US Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger for a ceasefire in the Vietnam War and a withdrawal of American forces.

You don’t have to mention who were involved in the Vietnam War in the first place because basically everybody else already did that after the prize was announced. The New York Times dubbed it the “Nobel War Prize”, and one popular quote in The Washington Post said “The Norwegians must have a sense of humour”.

One of the “weak” American presidents, Jimmy Carter, won it in 2002. That came shortly after the US Congress authorized the sitting president, George W. Bush, to use military force against Iraq amid “weapons of mass destruction” claims.

No need to say, that was both controversial and ironic. It was a compliment on America and big slap on the American face all at the same time.

In between Kissinger and Carter, Yasser Arafat was honoured in 1994. That prompted a Nobel Committee member to resign in protest while calling him the “world’s most prominent terrorist.” The criticism might be a little bit unfair, though, as anyone can be challenged to name an award-winning government leader who was never accused of supporting terrorism in one way or another. Carter might be one of the very few (if we take away what might have happened that he did not know about, that is.).

To top it all, Mahatma Gandhi never received the prize despite being nominated five times. Well, take your time to let that sink in.

“Trump for Nobel Peace Prize”

August 4, 2025: Cambodia is all for it, and the White House will certainly want to know what Thailand has to say about it.

Cambodia’s Deputy Prime Minister Sun Chanthol has been quoted by his country’s major English media network as saying that Phnom Penh would officially nominate US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his “critical role” in brokering the “ceasefire” between Cambodia and Thailand.

“He should get the Nobel, not only for his work on Cambodia but also elsewhere,” Chanthol told The Wall Street Journal.

Whether that could backfire is debatable. Already, some people are eying Trump with suspicion because he seemed to emerge quickly and out of the blue in supporting the truce talks.

And as a president whose administration has sent bombers into Iran without declaring a war and is always a subject of “a new Civil War” talks even among Americans, his Nobel Peace Prize nomination, let alone triumph, could be one of the most controversial.

Cambodia will beg to differ. According to the Khmer Times, a growing wave of gratitude has swept across the country. “Social media platforms have been inundated with hashtags such as #ThanksTrump, #PresidentOfPeace, and #TrumpForPeacePrize, with users hailing him as a global peacemaker. Memes, portraits, and tributes featuring Trump alongside the US and Cambodian flags – and images of Cambodian refugees, especially children – have gone viral,” the network has reported.

“Without Trump’s intervention, the situation could have turned much worse. He saved lives,” one Cambodian user on X reportedly wrote.



Former national leader and current Senate President Hun Sen also praised Trump’s intervention, stating as reported by theKhmer Timesthat it had a “profound impact on saving tens of thousands of lives” and stabilising the tense border region.

Problem with humanitarianism preaching

August 3, 2025: Humanitarianism is the hardest word, simply because if you want to really advocate it, you need to be consistent.

As tough as it is, wars make it a lot tougher.

If you cry for Cambodian patients needing Thai medical care, for example, you have to cry for the countless innocent children and women slain, injured, starving and displaced in Gaza as well. And you need to do it as vocally and in the same “heartfelt” manner as in the Cambodian case.

And if you cry for Gaza, you have to cry for the innocent people affected by the war in Ukraine as well. And if you cry for the Ukrainian civilians, you have to condemn governments that refuse to condemn the Israeli leadership, too. If you condemn Donald Trump for ignoring the plight of Gaza victims, you have to condemn Joe Biden and his entire White House without exception.

There’s more. Condemning the Russians or Israelis or the Hamas requires you to question the idea of drug patent, too.

On and on it goes.

Genuine “humanitarianism” takes political or ideological leanings out of the equation. Otherwise, it’s abusing, not advocating.

That’s why you have to be extremely, unambiguously and unbelievably consistent if you want to use “humanitarianism”, one of the most used, most distorted, least understood and least respected words in the dictionary.

Picture can tell thousand words, and video more so

August 2, 2025: If the past had as many cameras as the present, the world’s history as we know it would likely never exist.

Thailand is using photo and video content to show who was right and who was wrong in the armed conflict with Cambodia. In this age, that can be the best move possible.

Both countries have been trading charges, accusing each other of being the aggressor. But any government can fake accusations or stories. Who targeted civilians or who accidentally bombed villagers can now be better shown through a poor man’s smartphone.

Thailand has been on the offensive when it comes to photo and video evidence, inviting not just local reporters but also foreign journalists and diplomatic representatives to see real things and recorded content with their own eyes. The onus is on the Phnom Penh government to produce a similar kind of evidence.

Don't celebrate too early

August 1, 2025: Impact of the Trump tariffs on America and its trading partners is a slow burn, so any celebration is premature.

Economists have agreed that the greatest fear, a potential disaster, has receded. But they said both pro-Trump Americans proclaiming victory and countries cheering lower-than-expected US tariffs have to wait and see.

Ben May, Director of global macro forecasting at Oxford Economics, was quoted by BBC as saying that US tariffs still had the capacity to "damage" the global economy in several ways.

"They are obviously raising prices in the US and squeezing household incomes," he says, adding that supplies and demands around the world would change chaotically when one of the largest economies ends up importing fewer goods.

Sometimes good news is actually bad news that manages to avoid worst-case scenarios. Nations that had expected higher tariffs may be glad, but sooner or later farmers will protest, employees will lose their jobs and unprepared companies will collapse.

Daily updates, and opinions on, local and international events by Tulsathit Taptim.