Trump says he has ended six wars in six months. As a peace researcher, I’m scratching my head

In recent weeks, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that he has “solved” six wars in six months. Is it really that simple? As a peace researcher, I’m scratching my head.

This is a topic I should be able to say something about. Because when we look more closely at the conflicts Trump claims to have resolved, they turn out to be a hotchpotch of scenarios ranging from armed warfare to diplomatic tensions. So I’ve gone through each individual agreement – and find myself left with more questions than answers.

Kashmir: Ceasefire with limited effect

This all started in May with a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in their dispute over Kashmir – a region that has been ridden by conflict ever since 1947. After three weeks of fighting, Trump announced that he had negotiated a truce. Pakistan thanked Trump and wanted to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, but India suggested that the United States had only played a marginal role. The conflict de-escalated, but it is unclear how much influence was actually exerted by the United States.

Rwanda and DR Congo: Peace without all parties

In June, the White House presented an agreement between Rwanda and DR Congo concerning economic cooperation and respect for territorial sovereignty. The problem? M23 – the armed group responsible for much of the violence in eastern DR Congo – was not included. M23 has roots among the Rwandan Tutsi, but the Rwandan government denies any links with the group, despite widespread suspicions. The agreement does not address either the parties to, or the causes of, the conflict, but gives the United States rights to invest in the minerals sector. According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, almost 400 people were killed in this conflict in July – after the agreement was signed.

Israel and Iran: Peace negotiator in a conflict he helped bring about?

Soon after the Rwanda–DR Congo agreement, Trump claimed to have negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, following 12 days of fighting. At that point, the United States had conducted its own aerial bombardment of military targets in Iran. Although the agreement helped to subdue the conflict, the truce seems more like a tactical pause than a real step towards a lasting peace. When a party attempts to negotiate in a conflict that it has itself helped to escalate, there is a paradox: Can someone really be a peace negotiator in a war where their own actions have helped to worsen the situation?

Cambodia and Thailand: Peace due to pressure

At the end of July, there was an escalation of the border conflict between Cambodia and Thailand. The United States, Malaysia and China pushed for an agreement, and Trump threatened to end trade negotiations and impose tariffs of 36 percent. As if by magic, both countries agreed to a ceasefire. But the agreement is fragile, and each side has already accused the other of violations.

Armenia and Azerbaijan: Peace through economic incentives

On 8 August, there was a surprise announcement of a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan. After decades of conflict, the countries agreed to open a corridor via Armenia from Azerbaijan to the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan. The corridor, named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), will be administered by the United States, which has also secured for itself investment rights in the area for a term of 99 years. The peace deal marks a shift in the region, with Russia losing its role as primary negotiator. In this case, the United States deserves praise for having involved itself in a deadlocked conflict and addressing the key issues underlying it.

The sixth war – or is it?

It is unclear which conflict constitutes the sixth war. One candidate is the conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia concerning the GERD dam on the Nile. Trump claims to have prevented war, but there’s been no agreement nor was there a war to end. Another candidate is Serbia-Kosovo, where Trump previously negotiated an agreement concerning economic normalization. Now he is claiming to have averted a war by threatening tariffs – but once again, there’s no agreement nor was there a war to end. So now six wars have become seven.

Peace agreements or business deals?

Having gone through these agreements, it’s clear that Trump has been involved in several escalating and latent conflicts. But what was his motive? The agreements between Rwanda and Congo, and Armenia and Azerbaijan have clear economic benefits for the United States. Is it ethical to act as a negotiator in conflicts where one has economic interests?

A new world order – and a new type of peacemaking?

At the same time as we are seeing an increase in peace agreements and ceasefires, we are also seeing a rise in interstate conflicts. One possible explanation is increasing tension in the world order, as isolationism and fear make attack the best form of defence, particularly in border conflicts. The United States and Trump must take responsibility for some of this tension, which has been fueled by the Trump administration’s trade wars, foreign-aid cuts, and unpredictability. A paradoxical situation has arisen in which Trump is involved in negotiations where he himself has contributed indirectly to escalating the conflict.

Peace achieved by pressure – is it sustainable?

Finally, I repeat my question: Is it legitimate to use trade agreements and threats of tariffs to put pressure on parties to make peace? On the one hand, this kind of pressure can weaken the parties’ sense of ownership of the agreement and the trust between them. On the other hand, it gives the parties a way of deflecting criticism – they didn’t give in to the enemy, but to Trump.

And why aren’t we seeing the same kind of pressure on Israel to end the war in Gaza?

Does Trump’s approach represent a new, harsher, and more ruthless type of peacemaking – or is it simply political theatre with one goal: to win the Nobel Peace Prize? When Trump claims to have prevented seven wars  and also to have resolved three “pre-wars” – meaning that the conflicts between India and Pakistan, and Iran and Israel could have become nuclear wars, and that the conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt was at risk of escalating – his actions seem more like self-promotion than diplomacy.

As a side note: a “pre-war” is generally defined as a tense situation that has not yet become an all-out war. Strictly speaking, this term could be said to apply to relations between Ethiopia and Egypt. But when definitions become as flexible as ambitions, it’s perhaps not peace that’s the central consideration, but narratives about it.

• Siri Aas Rustad is Research Director at PRIO
• This text was published in Norwegian by Aftenposten
• Translation from Norwegian: Fidotext