NOBEL MIX OF PEACE AND POLITICS

One of the persistently recurring themes throughout President Trump's first ten months of his second term in office was his shamelessly relentless pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize. Even though the deadline to submit nominations of individuals and organizations for what the Oxford Dictionary of Contemporary History described as "the most prestigious prize in the world" was January 31, just a few days after the new administration assumed office, Mr. Trump never let up. Hardly a day went by during which he did not repeat the mantra that he was solving multiple wars, ultimately "eight in nine months," proclaiming: "that's never happened before." Numerous world leaders, eager to curry favor with him, dutifully and openly supported his claim. So, when on October 10 the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced it had awarded the honor to Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado for promoting democratic rights for her country's people in opposition to President Nicolas Maduro, President Trump's allies considered the fact that he was not selected an anticlimactic snub. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung accused the committee of putting "politics over peace." Notwithstanding the overdue timeline and the relentless, continuously applied, political pressure which really rankled Mr. Trump's most passionate opponents who claimed that he was entirely unworthy of the award, Mr. Cheung actually did have a point. Dr. Alfred Bernhard Nobel was a Swedish chemist, inventor, engineer and businessman who became known for inventing dynamite. More than a few of his contemporaries were of the opinion that he became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before. He died from a stroke in December of 1896 at the age of 63. At that time his estate was valued at more than 31 million Swedish kronor, about $160 million in today's currency, 94% of which has since been used to fund the Nobel Prizes he established in his will. Nobel set up his prizes to ensure that his legacy would be one of benefiting humanity rather than of being remembered as the "merchant of death" for his invention of dynamite. Each year a number of Swedish institutions award the Nobel prizes for outstanding achievements in Physics, Chemistry, Economics, Literature and Physiology or Medicine. Oddly, the Peace Prize is awarded by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Nobel may have been influenced by his admiration for Norwegian writers and peace activists, or by his conviction that Norway was a more peace oriented and democratic country than Sweden. His will did not provide a reason for awarding the Peace Prize in Norway. Unlike the scientific awards, which typically recognize objective empirical achievements, the Peace Prize inherently considers subjective qualifications, which makes it vulnerable to criticism. According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize is to be awarded to the person who during the previous year "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace conferences." However, Nobel's explicit mandate has repeatedly been ignored. The awarded prize frequently became a tool to encourage desired political transitions rather than actual peacemaking. The composition of the committee awarding it each year is determined by the Norwegian Parliament, which members reflect the political balance of Norway's legislature. Hence, national interests and the domestic political climate can influence the selection process. And, due to its political nature, the Nobel Peace Prize has been subject to numerous controversies. The prize has occasionally gone to war mongers and blood stained militarists. Henry Kissinger, architect of the secret carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos, received the prize in 1973 for negotiating a ceasefire in the Vietnam war. His co-recipient, North Vietnamese diplomat Le Duc To, declined to accept his portion of the award. The backlash to their nomination was so intense that two committee members resigned. Yitzhak Rabin, who oversaw the "Break Their Bones " policy during the first Palestinian Intifada in early 1988, received the prize in 1994. He shared his award with Shimon Peres, father of Israel's nuclear arsenal, who was held responsible for the Qana massacre in Southern Lebanon that killed 106 civilians, and with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. As a confirmed ally of Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, Maria Machado has faced criticism for supporting Israel's bombing of Gaza and for denying that Israel's disproportionately overwhelming response to the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks amount to genocide. And then there is the arguably premature prize awarded to Barack Obama, just nine months into his first term. While there is no official count, at least nine Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded that have been controversial. Examples of some that have been notably absent from the list of awardees are deserving people like Vaclav Havel, who led Czechoslovakia's "Velvet Revolution" and Mahatma Gandhi, who had a profound influence on the concept of non-violent resistance. So, Director Steven Cheung certainly has a point. However, this still raises the question of whether President Trump's record reflects the requisite criteria to merit receiving this award. The push to make Donald Trump the winner of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize already began within hours of the announcement of Venezuela's Machado's win this year. Despite his recent victory for brokering a Gaza ceasefire, his foreign policy featuring "peace through strength," the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, his threats to use military force against foreign territories like Panama and Greenland, ordering air strikes on Iran, or emboldening Israeli aggression in the Middle East, have betrayed his pledge to be a "peacemaker and unifier." Of course, none of this might stop the Nobel Committee from glossing over the traditional impediments to peace writ large. Perhaps it is time to redefine peace in terms of structural transformation and recommitting to the Prize's founding principles. Stop recognizing those who pursue peace not as a political strategy, and using power and military action, but as a principled mission rooted in justice, non-violence and human dignity. Theo Wierdsma

FRACTURED POLITICAL SPEECH NEEDS ATTENTION

President Donald Trump's recent struggle to pronounce the word "acetaminophen" during a press conference in which he advised pregnant women against using Tylenol, elicited mockery across social media. Acetaminophen is the primary ingredient in Tylenol, widely used for pain relief, which the administration alleges is connected to causing autism in children. It was not so much the content of the speech observers were reacting to, but to its inarticulate, embarrassing, rambling execution. Many Americans would probably also have difficulty pronouncing this word when they first see it. But most of us don't have a support staff to help us prepare for a speech to a national audience. We deserve to expect more. While it is not a formal requirement, there is a strong social expectation that U.S. presidents be fluent in English. Our office holder's use of language is a key tool for connecting with the public, conveying personality and projecting strength. His or her command of English, including all elements of grammar - speech, sentence structure, word order, - elements that work together to create meaningful and coherent sentences, is considered a critical part of their public persona and ability to communicate effectively with the American public and the international community. However, there is no constitutional or legal requirement concerning language proficiency for a president. Historically, many early presidents were multilingual due to their classical education or diplomatic roles abroad. That trend largely disappeared by the 20th century. The modern presidency, with its mass communication through media, places a much greater emphasis on a leader's perceived fluency in English Even though President Trump has openly considered himself to be "really smart" and a "stable genius," these are subjective qualifiers that are not always objectively measured, nor essential for capable communication. IQ tests, frequently referred to when discussing "genius," are not really useful for measuring someone's effectiveness. There are hundreds of different tests, with one study even identifying more than 200. Formats vary in their focus on specific cognitive abilities. A test used to determine a person's communication skills is the "Flesch-Kincaid" grade level formula which estimates the U.S. school grade level needed to understand a piece of text. It measures text complexity based on average sentence and word length used to insure content is understood by the intended audience. In other words, at what grade level does someone communicate with spectators or listeners. A historical review of an analysis, assessing the first 30,000 unscripted words spoken by the last 15 presidents from researchers at Carnegie Mellon University found that most presidential candidates speak at grade level 6 through 8. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter, who were basically at an 11th grade level, made the top of the list. President Trump clocks in around mid 4th grade level, the worst since Harry Truman, who spoke at nearly a 6th grade level. Mr. Trump was judged to speak at the lowest grade level with the smallest vocabulary. Many Americans, 54%, can't read past 6th grade competency. Having said all this, it bears repeating that there is no constitutional requirement for a president to demonstrate proficiency in English or to practice effective communication skills. But it helps! Our executive branch of government is typically equipped with speech writers and policy experts whose task include translating complex policy into a clear message that reflects a president's unique speaking style and personality. This involves research, drafting, review and rehearsal. Taking advantage of this dedicated staff could prevent public embarrassment in the future. Theo Wierdsma

DOMESTIC AFFAIRS SHAPE GLOBAL TRAVEL

A few decades ago, a life-time friend of mine in The Netherlands, refused to consider visiting us in California as long as George Bush was in office. This rejection caught me unexpectedly off guard. However, in retrospect, at that time his mindset symbolized an emerging reaction to multiple adverse political factors affecting international travel into the U.S. At the time, his attitude prevailed among many potential international travelers. Foreign tourism to the U.S. was dramatically impacted by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The decline resulted from psychological factors, new security measures and restrictive visa policies. The perception that was created suggested that entry into the U.S. was difficult. Besides, the Iraq war, started in March of 2003, and the "Bush Doctrine," which held that the country would implement a policy of preemptive military strikes against nations known to be harboring terrorist organizations, further damaged the sense of international goodwill toward the U.S. Our travel industry's share of the global market dropped from a peak of 9.4% in 1992 to a low of 5.9% in 2004. This decline cost us billions of tourist dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. Since the Bush years, the political landscape has changed. However, history appears to be repeating itself. Globally, tourism contributes about 10% to the value of all goods and services produced (GDP), employing 1 in 10 people world-wide. In 2024, global tourism's direct contribution was estimated at $10.9 trillion. The sector generated a record breaking $2.6 trillion to the U.S. economy that same year. This amounted to about 8% of our GDP, supporting 20 million jobs and $585 billion in tax revenue. The tourism industry is indisputably a vital part of our economy, and foreign travel constitutes a significant slice of this. In early 2025, the "U.S. Travel Association" projected that foreign travel spending would increase to $200.8 billion this year. This would have amounted to a substantial growth of 9% over 2024. However, in May, noting a sharp and widespread drop in arrivals, the "World Travel and Tourism Council" radically revised this assessment, and projected that this level of spending would actually drop to $169 billion, 8% below 2024. In addition, the Council predicted that, out of 184 countries tracked, the U.S. would end up being the only one to experience a decline in international visitor spending. So, what happened? More than a dozen countries, from Canada to Europe to China, have published advisories about travel to the U.S.. Tariffs, immigration crack down, repeated jabs about the U.S. acquiring Canada and Greenland, visions of army units on the streets, fears of being questioned at the border, the requirement to choose either "male" or "female" on visa applications, specific risks for those identifying as LGBTQ+, the fall of the dollar against the Euro, and a significant increase in the perception of uncertainty about what might happen next, are some of the concerns expressed by potential visitors. The loss won't be felt by travel and tourism alone. It represents a direct blow to the overall U.S. economy, impacting communities, jobs and businesses from coast to coast. Canadian tourist traffic, traditionally representing 28% of the total number of international visitors has already experienced a 25% drop, seriously affecting business income in a number of northern states. Las Vegas, which is significantly dependent on international traffic, has seen 12% fewer visitors each month since May. And Washington D.C., a traditional draw for foreign visitors, so far logged 48 cancellations of large reservations and events, and expects many more. Industries relying on foreign tourists: hospitality, retail and transportation are bracing for continued declines. Every 1% drop in international visitor spending equals $1.8 billion in lost revenue for our economy. This means that we stand to lose more than $21 billion in travel related income this year. Those depending on the tourism industry for their livelihood are legitimately wondering when their sector of the economy might recover. The FIFA world cup scheduled for next year may help spark a renewed interest in the U.S. as a travel destination. However, a sustainable recovery will depend on political and policy changes. A shift in policy focus, particularly toward improving visa access and easing travel restrictions should help revive this vital slice of our economy. Until then, the country's tourism industry must grapple with the lasting effects of restrictive policies and uncertain political conditions. Theo Wierdsma