The Illusion of Peace, the Machinery of War: Trump on the Global Stage
— Lalit Gargg —
Immersed in an intense desire for the Nobel Peace Prize, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s personality and style of governance have emerged as a profound irony and contradiction in global politics. His claim of being a messiah of peace may appear alluring, yet the reality of his actions stands in stark contrast. While he seeks credit for establishing peace in various parts of the world, his decisions, statements, and policies repeatedly give rise to war, unrest, fear, and instability. What kind of peace is this—one that marches alongside the roar of bombs, the sting of sanctions, and the language of hatred? What kind of performance is this of a “peace envoy,” where human blood continues to flow while power relentlessly serves its own interests?
Trump’s proposed plan for peace in Gaza is a recent and striking example of this contradiction. It was presented less as a peace initiative and more like a business deal, as though the future of a people grappling for decades with violence, displacement, and an existential crisis could be determined through a real-estate blueprint or an economic package. By sidelining international law, the role of the United Nations, local consent, and accountability, this attempt to impose “peace” reveals that, in Trump’s worldview, peace is not a moral or humanitarian value but a tool of power projection and political gain. Peace claimed under the shadow of bombs is nothing but deception—where only the commerce of peace and the hunger for dominance are visible. Trump’s so-called peace plan is, in reality, the politics of hegemony in the name of peace. It appears that his words speak of nonviolence, while his actions embody violence.
Trump has repeatedly dismissed the United Nations as ineffective, biased, and mired in bureaucracy. Yet the truth remains that a multilateral institutional framework is indispensable for global peace and stability. When such a framework ceases to serve the interests of powerful nations, they begin to undermine it—Trump stands as a vocal embodiment of this very tendency. His idea of creating a new global peace institution, while rhetorically attractive, is deeply entangled in contradictions. An attempt to erect an international body for peace that bypasses a widely accepted multilateral structure like the United Nations ultimately exposes an aspiration not for peace, but for power-centric dominance.
The question naturally arises: how can a leadership whose policies have rested on arms manufacturing and sales, the expansion of military alliances, threats of war, and economic coercion suddenly assume the role of a new global custodian of peace? In Trump’s political thinking, peace appears not as a humanitarian commitment but as an instrument of bargaining, control, and profit. Consequently, serious doubts arise about the relevance and credibility of his proposed peace institution. Anybody established without legitimacy, accountability, and global consensus cannot become a vehicle of peace; it can only function as an instrument to impose the will of powerful nations. Seen in this light, Trump’s initiative appears not as a concrete step toward peace, but as yet another stratagem to mask violence-driven policies and tighten his grip on global governance.
In Trump’s worldview, peace does not mean resolving conflicts; it means bending them to his advantage. At times he speaks of creating a parallel peace mechanism outside the United Nations, and at other times he issues threats of war against Iran. On one hand, he praises European nations to expand his influence; on the other, he pressures those same countries through trade sanctions and demands for increased military spending. This duplicity—this gap between rhetoric and action—fuels global instability. While speaking the language of peace, the sale of weapons, expansion of military alliances, and imposition of economic penalties remain integral to his policies. As a result, the world finds itself at a juncture where the drums of war grow louder and humanity appears to be standing on the edge of an abyss.
The Gaza crisis makes it abundantly clear that peace imposed without legitimacy, consent, and accountability can never be sustainable. If the safety of civilians, the dignity of life, and political rights are ignored, any agreement will prove hollow. Trump’s approach often overlooks these fundamental truths. Presenting economic incentives as substitutes for political rights is a dangerous illusion—one that collapses under the weight of ground realities. Peace can endure only when it incorporates the genuine voice of local people, acknowledges their suffering, and moves sincerely toward just solutions.
The proposal to involve India in peace efforts in Gaza further exposes this complexity. India’s diplomatic tradition has been rooted in multilateralism, the central role of the United Nations, and support for a two-state solution. India maintains strong relations with Israel while also retaining credibility across the Arab world. However, participating in a peace process that sidelines the United Nations would not align with India’s established diplomatic ethos. India has consistently prioritized stability and dialogue over direct intervention. In such a scenario, joining a Trump-driven initiative could pose both a moral and strategic challenge for India.
Ultimately, Trump’s policies reflect a worldview in which power is truth and morality is confined to speeches. The shadow of hatred and division is clearly visible in his rhetoric. His language on immigration, race, religion, and nationalism has fueled intolerance on a global scale. When the world’s most powerful nation sends such a message, its impact transcends borders. Wars are not fought only with bullets and missiles; they are also fought with ideas and words—and Trump’s words have often poured fuel on the fire.
From Ukraine to the Middle East, from Asia to Africa, the crises confronting the world today bear the imprint of the self-serving policies of great powers. Trump’s era appeared to intensify this trend, where “America First” overshadowed global cooperation. Pressure, bargaining, and threats in the name of peace form a triad that is lethal for humanity. A leader who presents himself as a symbol of peace is expected to build bridges, not walls; to expand dialogue, not war; to inspire trust, not fear.
The central question, then, is this: can the mere aspiration for a peace prize make one a messenger of peace? When peace is imposed without accountability, consent, and human values, it does not create harmony—it gives birth to new conflicts. Trump’s style of leadership bears testimony to this truth. At a time when humanity is losing lives to wars across the globe, the pretense of peace appears even more cruel. The world needs leadership that advances peace not through displays of power, but through compassion, justice, and multilateral cooperation. Otherwise, this performance of being a “peace messiah” will be recorded in history as a failed and dangerous experiment.
साभार :
© CopyRight Pressnote.in | A Avid Web Solutions Venture.