The writer is an economist, an anchor, geopolitical analyst
and the President of the All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
Donald Trump’s pursuit of a Nobel Peace Prize nomination has sparked intense debate, given his administration’s track record on military interventions and conflict resolution. Paradox of Trump’s Peacemaking that Trump’s peace-making claims are juxtaposed with his administration’s actions, which suggest a preference for military solutions over diplomatic ones. Despite his claims of being a peacemaker, Trump’s actions reveal a more complex picture. While he has pursued diplomatic efforts and received nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize, his military policies—launching 529 airstrikes in six months—and vetoes, such as the Gaza ceasefire resolution, suggest a preference for military solutions over diplomatic ones. Whereas, in the first tenure of Donald Trump, the War in Afghanistan (civilian deaths increased by 330% from Obama’s last year, 465 US military deaths). North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un’s statement to Trump accused the US of enabling Israel’s actions in Gaza, stating, “Israel would not be doing what it’s doing without your approval.” Held Trump responsible for the humanitarian crisis, saying, “You are the ones who supplied Israel with warplanes and missiles.” Chinese President Xi Jinping expressed deep concern over US policies on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, urging relevant parties to remain calm and exercise restraint, and called for an immediate ceasefire and protection of civilians, emphasising the need for a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the Palestinian question. It seems likely that his promise to end “forever wars” before re-election contrasts with his administration’s military actions since January 2025, with nearly as many airstrikes as Biden’s four-year total. Before re-election, Trump promised to end the U.S.’s “forever wars” and avoid foreign conflicts. However, since January 2025, his administration has launched at least 529 airstrikes, nearly matching the 555 airstrikes Biden conducted over four years. This includes 474 strikes in Yemen and 44 in Somalia, raising questions about his commitment to reducing military engagement. Trump has authorised at least 529 airstrikes since January 2025, across more than 240 locations in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. This escalation is particularly notable given the civilian impacts, highlighting the heavy human cost of these actions. The evidence leans toward Trump using veto power to block a UN Gaza ceasefire resolution and peace process, as contradicting peace-making efforts, though he justifies it as supporting allies. Trump has also claimed involvement in peace efforts, like brokering ceasefires, but these efforts often lack results, such as ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. This highlights the complexity of balancing peace efforts with military and diplomatic strategies. The findings reveal a complex picture, with significant implications for U.S. foreign policy and global perceptions of Trump’s leadership. Trump’s peace efforts include: Brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in April-May 2025, though India denied and emphasized bilateral negotiations, and Trump’s role was seen as hypocritical boastful, especially on the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program since April 2025 and then directly air-strikes on Iran, with devastated result of 12-day Israel-Iran War ended on Iran’s victory; Efforts to address the Gaza conflict, though the war continues with undiminished ferocity. These efforts have yielded failure or weak results, arguing that Trump’s approach lacks expertise and ignores conflict mediation principles, such as involving all actors and assessing ripeness for negotiation. Trump’s military actions contradict the “Forever Wars” promise. Since January 2025, his administration has significantly escalated military actions, undermining this promise to reduce military engagement. Trump’s peace-making claims are further complicated by his administration’s use of veto power to block international peace initiatives, particularly at the United Nations. A notable instance occurred on June 4, 2025, when the U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for an “immediate, unconditional, and permanent” ceasefire in Gaza: The resolution demanded: An immediate ceasefire respected by all parties; The immediate and unconditional lifting of restrictions on humanitarian aid to Gaza. The immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups. The U.S. was the only nation to oppose, with 14 others voting in favor and no abstentions. U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Camille Shea justified the veto, stating the resolution was “unacceptable”, emphasising support for Israel’s right to defend itself. Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar thanked Trump and the U.S. administration. This veto is not isolated; in November 2024, the U.S. also vetoed a similar resolution, citing concerns it would not secure hostage releases. These actions argue they obstruct peace-making processes and prolong conflict, though the U.S. frames them as necessary to support allies and address security concerns.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to US presidents who have been significantly involved in military conflicts and controversies, highlighting the complexities of peace-making and the challenges of balancing diplomacy with military strength. As the world continues to grapple with conflicts and challenges, understanding the nuances of peacemaking and the role of leaders is crucial. Previously, four US presidents have received this honour, despite of them being involved in military interventions and controversies. Theodore Roosevelt (1906) was awarded for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War. Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy combined military strength with strategic negotiation. However, his presidency was marked by military interventions in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and viewed as an imperialist. Woodrow Wilson (1919) recognised for founding the League of Nations, Wilson’s idealism influenced global governance. Nevertheless, his presidency was marred by violations of civil liberties and international law during military interventions. Jimmy Carter (2002) was also awarded for his lifelong commitment to peace and human rights, although he took several military actions during his presidency. Barack Obama (2009) was recognised for destabilising international diplomacy and cooperation. His presidency was marked by full of military interventions, and many argue the award was unjustified. These presidents’ involvement in military conflicts and controversies raises questions about the Nobel Peace Prize’s criteria and the motivations behind the awards. These US presidents have been involved in numerous wars and conflicts, resulting in significant human cost, with notable examples including: Theodore Roosevelt: Philippine-American War (4,196 US military deaths, 200,000 to 1 million Filipino deaths); Woodrow Wilson: World War I (53,402 US military deaths, 37 million total deaths); Barack Obama: War in Afghanistan (70,000+ civilian deaths, 1,906 US military deaths) and drone strikes (64-116 civilian deaths, estimated by the Obama administration); Whereas, in the first tenure of Donald Trump: War in Afghanistan (civilian deaths increased by 330% from Obama’s last year, 465 US military deaths). Since January 2025, his administration has launched at least 529 airstrikes, nearly matching the 555 airstrikes Biden conducted over four years, and vetoed several time on UN unanimous resolution. The total estimated death toll from US post-9/11 wars is 4.5-4.7 million, including direct and indirect deaths. These numbers highlight the devastating impact of war on human life and the importance of considering the long-term consequences of military actions. Trump’s approach and his aspiration for the Nobel Peace Prize appear more symbolic, with many viewing nominations as political gestures rather than reflections of genuine peace-building efforts. Trump’s mix of diplomatic efforts and military actions raises questions about his consistency and commitment to peaceful conflict resolution. The Trump administration’s decision-making process on military interventions and diplomatic efforts often lacks transparency, fueling concerns about accountability and effectiveness. As a polarising figure, Trump’s peace-making efforts are often viewed through a partisan lens, making it challenging to achieve broad support for his initiatives. Trump’s approach lacks the nuance required for effective peacemaking, relying on overwhelming force and dismissing international consensus. This tension highlights the complexity of U.S. foreign policy under Trump, balancing diplomatic aspirations with military and strategic priorities, and underscores the controversy surrounding his peacemaker claims. While Trump has pursued some diplomatic efforts, his administration’s actions often prioritise military might over diplomacy, undermining his peace-making credentials. As Trump’s administration launched 529 airstrikes in just six months, raising questions about his commitment to peaceful conflict resolution. Ultimately, the Nobel Committee must need to carefully consider the candidates’ record on conflict resolution and diplomacy when evaluating their nominations. The controversy surrounding the prize’s legitimacy raises questions about its value and impact on global politics. The Nobel Peace Prize, awarded to several US presidents, has sparked debate over its true nature. Rather than solely recognising genuine peace efforts, the prize appears to be influenced by politics, often awarded based on aspirations, symbolism or future potential rather than tangible accomplishments. This perception is fueled by the selection committee’s decisions, which have been criticised for being biased and guided by a liberal worldview. The question remains whether a leader who escalates military engagements can truly claim the mantle of a peacemaker, especially in a world seeking lasting peace.