The foreign policy efforts of American President Donald Trump are once again in the spotlight, as two of the agreements he has claimed – between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and between Thailand and Cambodia – are faltering shortly after being signed.
The Guardian analyzes, in an article by Peter Beaumont, how the American president „makes peace.”
Agreements falling apart shortly after signing
In recent months, Trump has claimed a series of questionable diplomatic successes, from the "agreement" between Rwanda and the DRC to mediating the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, and the alleged "ceasefire" in Gaza. However, events on Monday have cast doubt on these achievements just as the U.S. administration continues to pressure Ukraine to cede territory to Russia, the international aggressor, in exchange for a forced peace.
Fighting erupted earlier this week between Thai and Cambodian forces, in the most serious episode since the summer ceasefire. Meanwhile, in Africa, the recent agreement signed in Washington between Rwanda and Congo is already facing problems. Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi told parliamentarians that Rwanda is violating commitments made under U.S. mediation. Meanwhile, the situation in Gaza remains critical, with almost daily attacks on the Palestinian population.
The analysis highlights that despite Trump's ambitions - which have gone as far as renaming the American Institute of Peace after himself - his efforts do not even come close to what experts consider "negative peace," a temporary cessation of violence that is fragile and prone to recurrence.
Agreements vs. Peacebuilding: Two completely different logics
The concept is explained through the theories of Johan Galtung, the founder of peace and conflict studies, who distinguishes between:
- negative peace - absence of violence, but with unresolved tensions;
- positive peace - a complex process that addresses the root causes of conflict and societal inequalities.
According to experts cited by The Guardian, what Trump practices is not even negative peace, but simply "deal-making": punctual, spectacular transactions that produce politically useful images without solving real problems.
Arthur Boutellis, in an essay for the International Peace Institute, explains the difference:
"There is a fundamental difference between making deals and building peace. In business, dealmaking is transactional, zero-sum, and contractual: one party transfers ownership to the other in exchange for payment. The peace process, on the other hand, seeks to address the fundamental interests and needs of the parties in pursuit of durable, win-win outcomes. The goal is to build trust, transform relationships, and correct structural and historical injustices."
Spectacle prevails over process
The analysis notes that for Trump, the importance of symbols outweighs substance: televised handshakes and rapid signing of documents are treated as objectives in themselves. Even his business background - where "winning" is everything - is reflected in how he approaches international conflicts.
The problem, warns The Guardian, is that this lack of seriousness becomes transparent to all parties involved. Negotiations thus turn into exercises of bad faith, where each side tries to blame the others for failures, and the mediator - Trump himself - often ends up being perceived as the least trustworthy actor.
G.P.