Peacemaker Trump

More than one billion people in India and Pakistan breathed a sigh of relief after the ceasefire between the two countries. Life is returning to normal, with people on either side of the Line of Control trying to rebuild their shattered lives, ruined by the frenzy of war. The ceasefire was secured after a flurry of diplomatic activities in several parts of the world, but it wouldn’t be unfair to say that the flames of war could not have been doused without the active involvement of the US – and especially President Donald Trump.

Trump might be criticised for a number of policies that he has tried to impose since his inauguration in the Oval Office, but some of his actions do deserve appreciation. His initiatives to restore peace in several parts of the world have even forced his critics to praise him. After making hectic efforts to secure peace in Ukraine, his administration pressured the ruling elites of Pakistan and India to let sanity prevail in a region that has witnessed at least three wars and a number of limited border conflicts. Had Trump not intervened, this conventional war could have escalated into a nuclear Armageddon – leaving behind a trail of death, destruction and annihilation.

Given the volume of trade the US has with India and the level of involvement that Western companies have had in the largest democracy, almost all US administrations have been careful even to contemplate actions that might be construed as an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of India, owing to New Delhi’s extreme sensitivity to the perception of external interference in its internal matters.

India has always tried to create the impression that it would not tolerate any outside interference in the internal affairs of the largest democracy. Since it considers Kashmir an internal issue, it does not want any other country to counsel it on the matter. This was perhaps one of the reasons that prompted India to force Pakistan to accept Kashmir as a bilateral matter between the two states in the Simla Agreement of 1972. Islamabad, on the other hand, has always tried to internationalise the issue. In the past, New Delhi has contemptuously rejected outside mediation over Kashmir, categorically declaring that it is an issue between the two states and that any outside interference amounts to undermining the sovereignty of India, which has been making efforts to emerge not only as a regional power but as an international player as well.

India was flabbergasted when Trump tweeted about the ceasefire, putting a question mark on India’s claim that it would not countenance any outside interference in its internal affairs. New Delhi contemptuously dismissed suggestions that the US played any role in securing the ceasefire, asserting that it was the director general of military operations of Pakistan who contacted his Indian counterpart to reach an understanding. Indian media also seems to be buying this claim. One Indian newspaper wrote, “Donald Trump’s assertion that the India-Pakistan ceasefire resulted from US mediation appears to have been unequivocally refuted by the Indian government, which said that the ceasefire was negotiated directly between the two nations.”

It seems that the very word ‘mediation’ has hurt the ego of the Indian political elite, with many of them trying to put a spin on the US role. Congress MP and former diplomat Shashi Tharoor weighed in on Trump’s claim, suggesting it was "not mediation" but rather US efforts at playing a constructive role. But the alacrity with which the ceasefire was imposed – within an hour of Trump’s tweet – clearly flies in the face of claims by some Indian politicians that the US played no role.

This has boosted the Republican leader's image as a peacemaker. This is not his first effort at securing a ceasefire. He made similar efforts to bring about a cessation of hostilities between Russia and Ukraine. His peace initiatives have infuriated the powerful war lobbies operating in the power corridors of Washington, London, Paris and several other Western capitals, which wanted the conflict in Ukraine to last so that arms manufacturers could witness a phenomenal surge in their profits and market shares.

Trump is adroit at stunning friends and foes alike. During his previous tenure, he went the extra mile by shaking hands with the dictator of North Korea, surprising those who believed such an interaction could never happen. He also tried to normalise relations with Russia, in contrast to the intelligence community of his own country, which has always projected Moscow as a mortal enemy.

Although he took some steps in Afghanistan to pacify war lobbies in his country, he introduced drastic changes to the US’s Afghan policy, which culminated in the eventual pullout from the war-torn state. He claimed to be the only American president in recent decades who did not trigger any new conflict. Such a claim was not without substance.

Despite being extremely close to the Zionst state, Trump’s actions suggest that he prefers diplomacy over attacking Iran and destroying its nuclear installations. His decision to engage Tehran over this issue has stunned some of his supporters. There are also indications that Washington does not want to alienate its Arab allies and Turkish friends over the Middle East. He seems to have given up on his plans to build a war-ridden place into a haven for real-estate developers and seems to be treading carefully, keeping in mind that both sides are important to protecting American interests.

The US under Trump also seems to be relenting over the issue of reckless airstrikes on Yemen, while Washington does not seem in favour of destabilising Syria, which has witnessed terrible destruction over the last 15 years. It cannot be said that all of Trump’s actions are altruistic in nature. The intelligence community infuriated him in the past by getting closer to President Joe Biden, who was accused of carrying out a witch hunt against Trump and his supporters.

But in the process, the Trump administration seems to be dealing a severe blow to the traditional military-industrial complex. Now, if he can bring Indians and Pakistanis closer, hammering out a formula to resolve the inveterate issue of Kashmir – and if he can manage to deter one war-mongering state from triggering another conflict in the Middle East by attacking Iran and forcing it to accept a two-state solution – he might go down in history as a great peacemaker.

The writer is a freelance journalist who can be reached at:

egalitarianism444@gmail.com