Pakistan says it will nominate Donald Trump for Nobel Peace Prize for resolving its conflict with India
Pakistan has said it would recommend Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in helping to resolve the recent conflict between India and Pakistan.
Some analysts in Pakistan have suggested the move might persuade the US president to reconsider potentially joining Israel in striking Iran's nuclear facilities.
Pakistan has condemned Israel's attack on Iran as a violation of international law and said it threatens regional stability.
1:57
Last month a surprise announcement by Mr Trump of a ceasefire brought an end to a four-day conflict between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed states.
The US president has repeatedly boasted of averting a nuclear war and saving millions of lives, and has complained about not getting enough credit.
While Pakistan agrees US diplomatic intervention brought the fighting to an end, India has disputed that, saying it was a bilateral agreement between the two militaries.
"President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi, which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation," Pakistan said.
"This intervention stands as a testament to his role as a genuine peacemaker."
Mr Trump has long craved the Nobel Peace Prize, claiming he should have been awarded it for a variety of reasons.
In a post on his Truth Social platform on Friday, the president gave a long list of conflicts he claimed he had resolved, including Pakistan and India and the Abraham accords in his first term between Israel and some Muslim-majority countries.
"I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do," he added.
Pakistan's announcement it would nominate Mr Trump comes in the same week as its army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, met the US president for lunch.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
39 minutes ago
- NBC News
Iran launches retaliatory strikes on residential areas of Israel
Following U.S. air strikes on its nuclear facilities, Iran launched air strikes on residential areas of Israel. While Israel praised President Trump's decision to target the Iranian nuclear program. NBC News' Richard Engel reports.
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump suggests regime change in Iran – hours after Vance and Hegseth insisted that was not the plan
Just hours after Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted that there was no plan for the U.S. to push for regime change in Iran, President Donald Trump suggested he was open to the idea. After the U.S. joined Israel's air campaign targeting Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday with an audacious strike using bunker-busting bombs launched from B-2 bombers, Vance appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday morning. The vice president said that the administration's view 'has been very clear that we don't want a regime change.' He added: 'We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program, and then we want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here.' However, by late afternoon, a different message emerged from the White House. The president posted on Truth Social: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' It is the first time Trump has raised the possibility of regime change in Iran, or encouraged it, since Israel launched air strikes against the nation ten days ago. It is also a change of tune for Trump, who has criticized neo-conservatives in the Republican Party for years for their support for regime changes, most notably in Iraq. Vance is not alone in stressing that the goal is not to topple the government in Tehran. Other administration officials have said that the goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Also on Sunday morning, Secretary Hegseth insisted the Trump administration 'does not seek war' and is not trying to force regime change. 'Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated,' Hegseth told reporters in a briefing, adding that the strikes did not target Iranian troops or people. Vance reiterated that message during his NBC appearance, describing it as 'an incredibly targeted attack' while admitting it is 'an incredibly delicate moment.' Of the possibility of Iran responding by attacking U.S. troops, the vice president said it would be 'the stupidest thing in the world,' and would be 'met with overwhelming force.' 'If the Iranians are smart, they are going to have to look in the mirror and say, 'Maybe we are not so good at this war thing, let's give peace a chance, let's drop our nuclear weapons programme and start to make some smart decisions',' he added. In other posts, Trump said the damage to Iran's nuclear sites is said to be 'monumental' thanks to 'hard and accurate' hits by the military, and thanked the B-2 crews for 'a job well done' when they landed back in Missouri. Iran's U.N. ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, speaking at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Sunday, said that the U.S. 'decided to destroy diplomacy' with its strikes on the country's nuclear program and that the Iranian military will decide the 'timing, nature and scale of Iran's proportionate response.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Australia must stand firm in its support for a rules-based order and reject any US requests for military aid
America's bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities has no legitimacy under international law and carries significant implications for Australia. This is especially the case given how an Israeli/American/Iranian conflict could escalate, Australia's longstanding military alliance with the United States and the delicate current state of Australian-US relations under the Trump presidency including anxiety over Aukus. The United Nations charter recognises the right of all states to self-defence following an armed attack. However, certain conditions need to be met before a state can exercise self-defence which traditionally have been interpreted narrowly. Such an approach is essential if the UN charter prohibition on the use of force is to be maintained, and any legitimate use of military force is to be the absolute exception in the conduct of international relations. Use of force in self-defence is only permissible following an armed attack by one state against another, which has been extended to attacks from non-state actors. In this instance, there is absolutely no evidence that the United States suffered an Iranian armed attack. There have been ongoing incidents since the commencement of Israel's 2023 military campaign in Gaza of Iranian-backed Houthi rebels attacking international shipping in the Red Sea, including US flagged shipping. Those incidents have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis and military responses have been directed at the Houthi forces. Importantly, there has been no recent attack on American-flagged shipping that could have triggered a US right of self-defence. The US since 1945 also advanced a right of anticipatory and pre-emptive self-defence. Both concepts – which are framed around notions of the imminence of an armed attack occurring – are controversial in international law, are not directly referred to in the UN charter and have never been endorsed by either the UN security council or the international court of justice. The Bush administration's 2002 US national security strategy advanced a version of pre-emptive self-defence in direct response to non-state actors possibly acquiring weapons of mass destruction. That doctrine was developed following 9/11 in response to the emergence of the Osama bin Laden and the Islamic State group, and their possible access to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This doctrine was partly relied upon by the Bush administration to support its 2003 military invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and rid Iraq of WMD. While the US did achieve regime change no WMD were ever found. The Trump administration could argue it has come to the aid of Israel through an act of collective self-defence which is recognised in Article 51 of the UN charter. There are prominent examples of such conduct such as the 1991 Gulf War when the US-led 'coalition of the willing' came to the defence of Kuwait following Iraq's 1990 invasion. However, any legal argument supporting collective self-defence must be founded on whether Israel had a right of self-defence when it launched its initial 13 June strikes on Iran. This raises similar issues to those noted above and ultimately returns to an argument of Israel seeking to exercise a version of anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence which irrespective of the weak law on the facts is also very dubious. Legally, politically and diplomatically this places Australia in a very difficult position. Australia came to America's military aid in 2001 following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Howard government famously invoked the Anzus treaty and joined in the military intervention in Afghanistan alongside the US. That was legally an example of collective self-defence that had been given implicit United Nations security council endorsement. The 2003 Australian military intervention alongside the US in Iraq was much more controversial and generated intense domestic political and legal debate. The Howard government's legal justification was framed around United Nations security council resolutions permitting Iraqi weapons inspections and the need for Australia to join other UN members in militarily disarming Iraq. There are no such security council resolutions authorising the disarmament of Iran. In the absence of the US being the subject of an attack on its homeland and requesting Anzus alliance military support akin to 2001, it is unlikely that the Albanese government would confront the type of scenario the Howard government faced. There is a real prospect that if events in the Middle East continue to escalate and Iranian and Houthi attacks are launched against US shipping and US military assets that Australia could be asked to come to America's military aid irrespective of any Anzus obligations. With the Albanese government remaining firm in its support of Anzus, to turn down any US request for Middle East military support could spell the death knell for not only the Anzus military alliance but also Anzus. Labor governments have a proud history of supporting the UN charter. The Albanese government consistently references its support for international law and international institutions. The US strikes on Iran require a firm Australian response supporting the rules-based international order. Any US requests for military support arising from these incidents should be declined. Donald Rothwell is professor of international law at the Australian National University
