This past Sunday in Malaysia, at the margins of a conference of Southeast Asian leaders, President Donald Trump officiated a function for the signature of a cessation of hostilities pact between Thailand and Cambodia. The pair of nations had already consented to a ceasefire during July to put an end to a five-day clash, the most recent surge in a decades-old boundary disagreement. This constituted an “improved” arrangement that featured pledges from both countries to withdraw their formidable weapons and permit global observers. Nonetheless, the rationale for the ceremony to be conducted likely had greater connection to Trump having stipulated it as a precondition for joining the conference.
Unsurprisingly, Trump seized the chance once more to promote, as he has repeatedly in the last few months, the “eight wars that my administration has brought to a close within eight months,” adding, “there’s never been anything analogous to this. We’re averaging one per month… I probably shouldn’t mention it’s a leisure activity, because it carries much weight, but it is something I excel at and derive joy from.” Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet faithfully endorsed Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize during the occasion.
There exists an established adage that conflict functions as God’s means of instructing Americans in geography. If nothing else, Trump’s pursuit of a Peace Prize seems to possess a parallel outcome, drawing an Oval Office focus to several international frictions that do not typically hold a prominent spot in US media outlets.
“I cannot recall the last occasion an American president has so frequently referenced Thailand and Cambodia, along with Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo,” noted Eurasia Group president and overseas affairs analyst Ian Bremmer not long ago. Trump himself on occasion seems somewhat unclear regarding the geography, having stated at various junctures to have established amity within Albania and Azerbaijan and linking Cambodia with Armenia. Nevertheless, according to Trump, his aptitude for swiftly securing these arrangements proves that a multitude of global quandaries stem from the “foolishness” exhibited by his forerunners, and that his personal history of decades spent deal-making renders him more suitable to resolve these issues relative to the diplomatic staff he has radically diminished and marginalized.
To be impartial, the eight disputes Trump alludes to are concrete and grave. Yet, a more thorough scrutiny of his claims to have concluded them reveals some obvious distortions, several authentic albeit hesitant achievements, and certain perplexities. Let us assess his self-declared accomplishments individually.
Israel and Hamas
This constitutes the significant one: One of the two globally divisive conflicts (in conjunction with Russia and Ukraine, where advancement in pacification has been limited) that Trump asserts would have remained dormant had he served as president and that he pledged to promptly resolve. Indisputably, Trump’s eagerness to exert leverage on Israel and his knack for compelling Arab allies to pressure Hamas held critical value in securing the truce and hostage liberation pact that became operative during mid-October.
Nevertheless, it merits recalling that a cessation of hostilities had been in effect when Trump assumed office in January, lasting until March when Israel initiated aerial strikes once more and brought aid to Gaza to a halt with Trump’s approval. The continuity of this latest cessation of hostilities hinges on Trump’s willingness to remain invested in the matter.
Israel and Iran
The “12-day war” drew to a close in June when Trump conveyed a ceasefire through social platforms, apparently startling the Israeli government. Trump’s diplomatic strain and extremely public vexation likely contributed toward the ceasefire’s endurance. Conversely, Trump had endorsed the Israeli airstrikes, essentially disregarding his personal diplomatic undertaking aimed at addressing Iran’s nuclear agenda, and the US became involved in the conflict through the bombardment of Iranian nuclear sites. This transpired more as a separate declaration of triumph made by a participant in the combat as opposed to a mediating endeavor that terminated the fighting.
Cambodia and Thailand
This represents a border dispute that has been brewing for a century and has intensified since 2008, once Cambodia sought to catalog a sanctuary within the disputed locality under UNESCO’s designation as a global heritage landmark. The two factions have routinely engaged in minor battles through the years. The latest instance, transpiring over the summer, caused the demise of a minimum of 33 individuals and the eviction of thousands.
Trump was instrumental in concluding the surge by cautioning both countries that he would refrain from negotiating trade and tariff arrangements with them till the cessation of skirmishes. According to all documentation, this was pivotal in facilitating Thailand’s consent to mediated dialogues, which it had previously opposed. Those dialogues were intermediated by Malaysia, and China further exerted strain, though Trump can reasonably assert possessing a significant role in the agreement.
India and Pakistan
When lingering strain amid India and Pakistan concerning a horrifying terrorist strike within the contested Kashmir region escalated into comprehensive warfare during May, the Trump government initially refrained from involvement, with Vice President JD Vance depicting it as “fundamentally irrelevant to us.” However, most likely attributed to worries regarding the prospective deployment of nuclear weapons, that posture was revised, and officials from the government used telephone diplomacy hoping to conclude the four-day clash.
Pakistan’s administration has fully acknowledged Trump for the arrangement and nominated him for a Nobel, thus awarding the nation’s military commander Asim Munir an uncommon visit to the White House. On the contrary, India has challenged the portrayal indicating that they ceased their military offensive under coercion from Trump. Trump’s choice to publicize the arrangement himself on Truth Social probably piqued New Delhi. It seems apparent that the US was involved in mediating this conflict, mirroring previous India-Pakistan surges. All the same, it is reliable to infer this would not signify the final instance the two intense rivals exchange gunfire across their border.
Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo
On June 27, the pair of Central African neighbors ratified a peace agreement at the White House aiming to cease months of engagement that had caused the deaths of thousands and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands. This was documented as the most recent phase within a multifaceted array of civil wars and involvements inside Congo extending back to the spillover of violence into the DRC stemming from the 1994 Rwandan massacre. Under the June arrangement, the two committed to uphold each other’s territorial wholeness and abstain from backing armed factions. They additionally concurred upon a framework for a minerals agreement upheld by prospective US investment.
All of the above merited commendation. The quandary arises given that the M23 rebels — the Rwandan-backed entity involved in the majority of engagement with the Congolese military — did not acknowledge the arrangement and have sustained skirmishes. At select locales the violence has undergone intensification.
Armenia and Azerbaijan
This signifies a substantive diplomatic stride, although not the cessation of a war. The pair of Caucasus neighbors had existed within a state of fluctuating hot and cold war dating to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, predominantly pertaining to the classification of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian territory completely encompassed by Azerbaijan. In 2020, the pair engaged in a 44-day conflict that ended in complete triumph for Azerbaijan. In 2023, Azerbaijan initiated a fresh embargo culminating in the capitulation of Nagorno-Karabakh’s regional authorities in conjunction with the eviction of almost its total Armenian populace.
At a White House forum that Trump hosted during August, the two nations’ leaders consented to standardize diplomatic relations following almost 30 years spent engagement. Trump occupied a favorable position to accomplish this, considering neither faction desired Russia, the conventional regional authority, involved. Observers remarked at the time that the relaxation amid the two nations carries fragility, although broadly awarded Trump credit for enabling the prospective diplomatic advancement. Still and all: The actual “war” concluded prior to Trump assuming office.
Egypt and Ethiopia
Trump has taken ownership on Truth Social for “upholding peace between Egypt and Ethiopia.” Here exists a circumstance in which it’s not entirely explicit what he’s referencing. Throughout his opening term, the US participated in endeavors to mediate a disagreement linking Egypt and Ethiopia pertaining to the assembly of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, Africa’s largest hydroelectric dam, which Egypt expressed concern could be implemented to divert the Nile River from which Egypt is dependent on to provide its waters and agriculture. The US-mediated dialogues eventually disintegrated. The dam formally opened during September of this year amid firm Egyptian objections. Ethiopian functionaries have rejected Trump’s assertion indicating that the dam had been “foolishly financed by the United States of America.”
Egyptian functionaries have spoken in the past concerning military intervention to forestall the dam’s completion, and Trump himself communicated that the Egyptians might detonate it, although no indication suggests that Egypt had been practically preparing to effect that. No concurrence has emerged between the nations concerning the management of the water. No war transpired here — but an active global dispute exists which Trump has yet to resolve.
Speaking confidentially, an official representing the White House directed Vox to the president’s “public remarks on Egypt/Ethiopia where he discusses this.”
Serbia and Kosovo
This declaration has as well elicited some disarray, both inside the US and the Balkans. Trump informed reporters inside the Oval Office during June, “I possess a friend residing inside Serbia, and he disclosed to me, ‘We anticipate engaging in warfare once more.’ And I would prefer to not mention that it’s Kosovo, however, it pertains to Kosovo. They contemplated initiating a substantial war, but we halted it. We halted it due to trade.”
After a harsh war, Kosovo secured its de facto autonomy from Serbia during 1999, even though Serbia continues to not acknowledge it and strain amid the two are ongoing. Nevertheless, no publicly accessible substantiation suggests the war stood prepared to reignite this year. During June, Kosovo’s president communicated she maintained “reliable information” indicating that Trump had averted an escalation of the conflict, yet Serbia disputed this.
Throughout his initial term, Trump with his envoy Richard Grenell engaged in a role assisting Serbia and Kosovo in reaching an economic normalization agreement that reached signature at the White House during 2020. The White House official mentioned that Trump’s statements pertaining to Serbia-Kosovo were “referring to his initial term” — which does not necessarily shed light on the narrative concerning his friend, in conjunction with his assertion to have brought eight wars to a conclusion throughout the last year.
Giving peace a chance
To provide clarity, more detrimental “interests” could be held by a president than endeavoring to negotiate the ending to several of the most lethal and complex conflicts across the world. Moreover, at times Trump’s transactional and capricious flair has succeeded in realizing advancements that might have bypassed more conventional diplomacy. Trump has recently directed his sights at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border disagreement alongside Sudan’s brutal and challenging civil war, and all should grant him success.
The predicament stems from Trump’s oversimplification concerning these conflicts (in isolated instances, his comprehensive misrepresentation concerning them), his overemphasis toward his individual endeavors, in conjunction with his tendency to transition toward alternate subjects upon the dilemma being “resolved,” trivialize the concerns motivating each dispute. His fixation toward receiving praise regarding his undertakings might render the more strenuous task pertaining to addressing the underlying factors spurring the engagement, throughout all these locations, challenging to unravel.
Trump gravitates toward advocating for his advancements, inclusive of the genuine ones, not as ceasefires although as the definitive conclusion to years, decades, and potentially “thousands of years” spent experiencing conflict. The rejoinder inside each one of these circumstances resides in, “we shall see.”
Source: vox.com
