Mr. Diplomacy is just as blinkered as Mr. Conflict, placing our tale in the political sphere. It appears to occur frequently in the current presidential phraseology that global conflicts and diplomatic tensions are being deftly resolved under President Donald Trump’s supervision, portraying him as Mr. Diplomacy. This image certainly undermines a contrasting character, Mr. Conflict, who seems unpopular in the recent decades due to his demonstrated shortcomings and is not regretted as he departs from the political stage. Indeed, conflicts have been resolved, but the extent of U.S. contributions is a contentious topic. Such as, India unequivocally rejects any American contribution in resolving their brief conflict with Pakistan, and the recognition of the Azerbaijan–Armenia truce amounts to merely acknowledging Azerbaijan’s triumph.
High-profile border disagreements like those between Cambodia and Thailand or Congo and Rwanda, while regrettable, might leave American citizens perplexed about their relevance to the United States of America. Moreover, why such resolutions are touted by the current president as achievements of U.S. diplomacy could be a mystery. While it is undoubtedly a relief that these conflicts have been concluded, one could question their significance in shaping political legacies. It’s mildly amusing to observe who is recommending Trump for the globally coveted award, the Nobel Peace Prize, which has become somewhat of a punchline in recent times.
When considering the practices of Azerbaijan’s Aliyev regime, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the government of Pakistan, who could question their commitment to peace? In contrast, during the initial eight months of Trump’s second term, the U.S. has launched intense aerial attacks against Yemen’s Houthis, albeit ineffectively, and was manipulated by a less prominent ally into perpetrating equally ineffective attacks on Iran. Plus, we continue to extend funding and weaponry to the Ukrainians and Israelis while simultaneously looming over several South American regimes with menacing gestures of military might.
The human inclination to strive beyond one’s grasp is ever-present and Trump’s actions so far seem incongruous for a man dubbed Mr. Diplomacy. The ongoing wartime negotiations in Ukraine serve as an excellent case in point. The primary combatants are presently engaged in warfare as they believe it to be in their respective national interests. Barring significant changes in the prevailing circumstances, such as an economic meltdown in Russia or a breakdown of the Ukrainian defensive line, their strife appears to be persistent.
It seems that the U.S. is reduced to keenly observing the situation from a distance, with minimal impactful interventions. Similar confusion surrounds the potential role of the U.S. in resolving the Israel–Gaza conflict, even though we could clearly stop fanning the flames. Mr. Diplomacy might command a persuasive presence on the television screen, however, his aspirations to micromanage international affairs are potentially as misguided as those of his counterpart, Mr. Conflict.
Two texts of classical literature, Sallust’s Jugurthine War and Seneca’s Hercules Furens, provide compelling paradigms for understanding America’s position in this century. They serve as reminders that an empire can have unforeseen repercussions, and that no entity, however powerful, is immune to its own follies and mistakes. The relevancy of these principles remains intact today. Changing the expression of American foreign policy from a frown to a smile doesn’t necessarily render it more efficacious.
American efforts should not be unduly concentrated on global affairs unrelated to the nation’s special interests. We have sufficient problems requiring our attention within our borders. The task of rectifying world issues not only drains resources and diverts focus but also proves to be ineffective. Setting out on a journey to instill peace and promote goodwill among men might not seem as grim as the alternatives, but it might be equally naive.
Aiming to become the global savior often leads to picking up untenable responsibilities along the way – securing the borders of inconsequential areas, to state an example. The president’s role should not be confined to either Mr. Diplomacy or Mr. Conflict; it should rather embody the spirit and interests of Mr. America.
The post The Dichotomy of Mr. Diplomacy and Mr. Conflict under Trump appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
