NEEDLESS to say, in his second term, US President Trump’s approach to peace diplomacy marks a significant departure from traditional US foreign policy fostered during the Cold War and the post-Cold War periods—fundamentally premised on realpolitik and interventionism.
Obviously, in contrast to the past US foreign policy legacy, Trump’s unconventional synergies prioritize personal relationships over fixed diplomatic processes, which are accompanied by swift actions and public spectacles, yielding mixed results. Trump views America’s dominance as a tool to reassert its power in the evolving global landscape. These actions could lead to substantial shifts in international relations and global power dynamics.
Donald Trump’s approach to global diplomacy, characterized by a challenge to the US’s traditional role and transactional dealings, has significantly altered the international landscape. His actions have drastically transformed the global order matrix. This shift represents a departure from post-World War II norms, basically using both economic leverage and military posturing; engaging with parties traditionally excluded from Washington’s diplomatic overtures; and prioritizing rapid resolutions over long-term diplomatic processes. This change impacts international cooperation, conflict resolution and the overall stability of the world order. Some sources suggest that Donald Trump’s actions, such as Operation Warp Speed (OWS) and his pursuit of peace through diplomacy, may warrant consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize, aligning with Alfred Nobel’s vision of peace.
When Trump vows to end global wars, it aligns with an “America First” ideology, which includes elements of both isolationism and interventionism. This suggests a shift away from traditional American exceptionalism, which often involves global engagement and leadership, towards a focus on domestic interests and avoiding foreign entanglements. This approach could be seen as an attempt at conflict pacification by reducing US involvement in international conflicts. Enduringly, Trump peace diplomacy is credited with ending a dangerous war in May 2025 between India and Pakistan, with helping to deescalating the tensions between two nuclear South Asian powers.
Further, President Trump is also credited with ending Israel-Iran war. Simultaneously, he is appraised of ending Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict and is quest for diffusing tensions in the Korean Peninsula. And Cambodia also nominated President Trump for the Nobel peace prize for his pivotal role in ending Thailand-Cambodia war. Also, Trump halted a war between Rwanda and Congo. Clearly, Russia’s war in Ukraine presents a significant challenge to any potential Trump peace diplomacy. Key obstacles include the Ukrainian fear of land concessions and the ongoing bombing by Russia, making serious negotiation difficult. The situation is further complicated by the different Ukraine perspectives, its European allies and Russia, all of which need to be considered for a viable peace agreement. Trump’s approach to this complex situation will likely involve navigating these sensitive geopolitical issues while considering the various stakeholders’ interests.
And arguably, Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, including diplomacy, differs significantly from previous administrations, potentially representing a unique feature since John F. Kennedy’s presidency. This difference could be attributed to Trump’s methods or the specific foreign policy changes he implemented. The snippets highlight a shift in US foreign policy, potentially involving economic incentives. Needless to say constructivism is a suitable approach for understanding the foreign policy of the Trump Administration. Trump’s actions and rhetoric suggest a zero-sum game perspective in international relations, where one party’s gain is another’s loss. This view potentially influenced his approach to peace diplomacy, focusing on perceived advantages and disadvantages in international agreements. The snippets suggest that understanding Trump’s foreign policy requires considering these elements, contrasting rhetoric with actual outcomes.
The Alaska summit (August 15), featuring talks between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, held potential significance as their first in-person meeting since the previous administration. Experts suggest it could initiate peace negotiations, even if a full resolution is unlikely. This summit offers a platform for the Russian leader to gain international recognition, while the US aims to facilitate peace. The event, which took place at a Cold War-era air force base, symbolizes the complex historical context of the relationship and underscores the high stakes involved in the discussions. Both leaders expressed optimism on future agreements. Trump suggested a potential meeting in Moscow. Trump described the talks very productive and profound, albeit without any concrete result. Though President Putin is determined to see Ukraine not a NATO’s member state, it is plausible that western hypocrisy vis-à-vis international law in Israel’s Gaza war has caused reluctance in Putin’s mind to concede to Trump’s Ukraine war negotiations.
True, Israel‘s war in Gaza presents a significant challenge to Trump’s peace diplomacy due to the ongoing conflict and the complexities surrounding it. The situation involves issues such as the displacement of Palestinians, potential re-occupation by Israel and the blockade of Gaza. The humanitarian crisis, with images of starving children, further complicates peace efforts, prompting tougher stances from international actors. These factors make achieving a lasting peace in the region a formidable task for any diplomatic initiative. Pakistan rejects Netanyahu’s crafted unilateral greater Israel displacement plans as UN Human Rights Office accuses the West Bank-settlement and Gaza relocation plan as a war crime.
Undeniably, Trump’s peace exceptionalism is blurred when it comes to the Palestinians’ right of self-determination. This is supported by the analysis suggesting a lack of investment in ending the conflict and potentially influencing Palestinian leaders’ views on the peace process. The absence of a resolution to the war undermines any potential for a significant diplomatic achievement.
Trump’s bias toward Israel and his transactional approach to short-term peace plans are met with skepticism. Still, peace pragmatists argue that his worthy intent to broker peace in the world’s war zones remains a worthwhile endeavor, lending weight to his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.
