Deals or Peace? Trump’s Diplomatic Efforts Face Scrutiny

Former President Donald Trump’s assertions of his unique prowess as a global peacemaker, efforts for which he received the FIFA Presidential Award, are now being rigorously re-examined. Recent international developments have cast a harsh spotlight on several high-profile diplomatic successes he championed, raising questions about the durability of these agreements and the fundamental nature of peace itself.

Trump’s Diplomatic Achievements Under Fire

Trump’s administration frequently highlighted its role in brokering various international accords. Among these were a newly signed agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), mediation in a deadly border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, and a “ceasefire” in Gaza. However, a series of events unfolding on a recent Monday challenged the long-term effectiveness of these diplomatic interventions.

Resurfacing Conflicts Challenge Claims

Simultaneously, these setbacks emerged against a backdrop where Trump and his officials reportedly pressured Ukraine to concede sovereign territory to Russia, effectively rewarding an illegal international aggression. This broader context further complicates the narrative of a successful peacemaking foreign policy.

Southeast Asia: Thailand-Cambodia Border Erupts

In Southeast Asia, the fragile calm along the Thai and Cambodian border shattered. Heavy fighting erupted once more between the two nations’ forces, marking the most significant escalation since a ceasefire had been implemented the previous summer. This renewed violence directly undermined claims of a resolved dispute.

African Great Lakes: DRC Accuses Rwanda of Violations

The Great Lakes region of Africa also saw a rapid unraveling of a freshly inked agreement. The deal, mediated in Washington between Rwanda and the DRC, faced immediate peril. Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi publicly informed lawmakers that Rwanda was already violating its commitments under the peace arrangement, indicating a lack of genuine adherence to the terms.

Middle East: Gaza’s Lingering Desperation

Meanwhile, in the Gaza Strip, the humanitarian situation for Palestinians remained as dire as ever. Despite previous declarations of a “ceasefire,” the region continued to endure almost daily attacks, demonstrating that the underlying conditions for lasting tranquility had not been established.

Understanding Peace: Galtung’s Framework

Foreign policy experts often turn to the theoretical frameworks developed by figures like the late Johan Galtung, a Norwegian sociologist and a foundational figure in peace and conflict studies, to differentiate between various forms of peace. Galtung’s work provides a critical lens through which to evaluate diplomatic outcomes beyond mere cessation of hostilities.

Negative Peace vs. Positive Peace

Galtung and his contemporaries conceptualized peace in two distinct ways. The first is “negative peace,” characterized simply by the absence of direct violence. While fighting may cease, the underlying tensions, unresolved grievances, and structural issues that fueled the conflict persist. This makes negative peace inherently fragile and susceptible to episodic outbreaks of renewed aggression, as seen in the recent international flashpoints. A classic example of negative peace is a temporary truce where the root causes of disagreement remain unaddressed.

In contrast, “positive peace” goes beyond the mere absence of violence. It involves addressing the root causes of conflict, fostering social justice, equality, and sustainable development. It seeks to eliminate structural violence—forms of injustice embedded within social, political, and economic systems—and build relationships based on cooperation and mutual respect. The recent breakdowns in agreements highlight the critical distinction between brokering a temporary halt to violence and achieving the deeper, more enduring state of positive peace.

Source: The Guardian