No end to wars: Trump, Pakistan and the art of self-congratulation
Amar Patnaik , Kartikey Singh Pakistan's cynical nomination of the US president for a Nobel Peace Prize tells us something grim about today's world. Yet, as we just saw, performative diplomacy can quickly collapse. Both Pakistan and the US need to ponder the principles that underpin that prize The episode underscores how performative diplomacy, rooted in a 'transactional calculus' rather than strategic coherence, can quickly collapse under the weight of real-world events.
Gift this article
Two days after US President Donald Trump was 'officially recommended" for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize by Pakistan, the United States joined Israel in launching airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. Now, six months into Trump's second presidency, the world is not witnessing the peace he promised but an intensification of the very wars he vowed to end 'in 24 hours".
Two days after US President Donald Trump was 'officially recommended" for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize by Pakistan, the United States joined Israel in launching airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. Now, six months into Trump's second presidency, the world is not witnessing the peace he promised but an intensification of the very wars he vowed to end 'in 24 hours".
Against this backdrop, Pakistan's nomination seems to be motivated by strategic sycophancy, aimed at currying favour with Washington in exchange for 'diplomatic goodwill.' Also Read: There we go again: Will America ever rid itself of its Pakistan delusions?
In West Asia, Trump has openly favoured Israel across multiple wars. His stance on the Gaza conflict, a war triggered by Hamas's October 2023 incursion into Israeli territory, gruesomely killing 1,195 people and taking 251 hostages, is marked by inconsistency and opportunism. While he helped broker a three-phase ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas in January 2025, it collapsed within weeks as both sides traded accusations of violations.
Nevertheless, Trump made no substantial effort to salvage the agreement. Instead, he oscillated between contradictory plans, endorsing Israel's military operations, proposing the US occupation of Gaza and suggesting peace negotiations with Hamas.
Further, Trump's diplomacy has followed a similarly incoherent arc in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Rather than finding a genuine long-term solution, he has repeatedly pressured Kyiv, even tying US military aid to concessions on 'rare earths.'
Simultaneously, his approach to Iran has been equally erratic. After having withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Obama sponsored nuclear deal with Tehran—in 2018, Trump initiated talks earlier this year, only to undercut them by carrying out three airstrikes in Iran.
On India, Trump's claims of a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, through late-night calls, 'trade-for-peace" overtures and personal negotiations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have been categorically denied by New Delhi.
Recently, the PM himself made it clear to Trump that India has never accepted mediation—and will never do so. This clear stance is not reactionary, but reflects India's long-standing 'strategic autonomy.'
India maintains robust diplomatic ties, among others, with Iran, deepening security partnerships with Israel and growing defence interoperability with the US, without allowing any single axis to influence its regional posture.
Islamabad also hopes to secure US backing on Kashmir and deepen economic and tech ties.
In a broader perspective, the US president must learn from past episodes.
In 2001, the US invaded Afghanistan, promising to eliminate Al Qaeda, defeat the Taliban and establish democracy in the country. Yet, two decades later, power was returned to the Taliban. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq, claiming that Baghdad harboured weapons of 'mass destruction.' Additionally, in 2011, it intervened in Libya, citing the need to protect civilians from their government.
Importantly, the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded 'for the greatest benefit to humankind," has been awarded to US presidents since Theodore Roosevelt (1906). Awards given to Woodrow Wilson (1920) for the League of Nations, Jimmy Carter (2002) for human rights and Al Gore (2007) for climate action were consistent in recognizing a commitment to institutional architectures, multilateral cooperation and universal values. Even Barack Obama's 2009 award, widely seen as aspirational, was granted less than a year into his presidency amid ongoing conflicts. He himself humbly acknowledged that he might not have deserved it. Yet, this award has long reflected a clearly stated vision and commitment to international diplomacy and 'global collaboration.' In essence, it recognized efforts to build bridges. In contrast, Trump's pursuits starkly deviate from that end.
President Trump's departure from multilateralism is not incidental. It signifies a deliberate shift away from both global and domestic institutionalism. His administration's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council; exit from arms control treaties like the INF and Open Skies Agreements; defunding of UNRWA; and departure from Unesco all demonstrate a clear disregard for an 'international consensus.'
The Trump administration's actions have frequently been unilateral and without credible alternatives. Domestically, policies such as protectionist tariffs, aimed at shielding US industries, may ultimately raise consumer costs, strain American businesses and disrupt global trade flows.
The episode underscores how performative diplomacy, rooted in a 'transactional calculus' rather than strategic coherence, can quickly collapse under the weight of real-world events. It is a sharp example of how easily performance is mistaken for policy.
As the world's most powerful nation's leader, Trump is uniquely positioned to shape the architecture of peace, not perform it. If he truly alters the global trajectory, the recognition he seeks will follow, as it always has—for substance, not show.
The authors are, respectively, a lawyer, former Member of Parliament and civil servant (@Amar4Odisha), and a lawyer based in New Delhi. Topics You May Be Interested In
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump dominates NATO summit: 3 takeaways from the meeting
United States President Donald Trump dominated the discussions during this year's NATO summit, which concluded on Wednesday (June 25). He returned to Washington after what he saw as a symbolic victory — the NATO members agreement on increasing their defence spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP). Here are key takeaways from the summit. The 5% defence spending target Trump called the summit 'a very historic milestone' as Nato allies (the member nations) made the ambitious 5% GDP defence spending target. He said the consensus was 'something that no one really thought possible. And they said: 'You did it, sir, you did it'. Well, I don't know if I did it … but I think I did.' Of the 5% figure, 3.5% would be achieved entirely through core defence spending and weapons. The remaining 1.5% can be put towards 'defence-related expenditure', broadly referring to such infrastructural spending to 'protect our critical infrastructure, defend our networks, ensure our civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen our defence industrial base'. Allies (NATO members) would need to submit plans to meet the 5% figure annually and follow a 'credible, incremental path', with a review on progress expected after the 2029 US presidential election. The 3.5% core defence spending target itself will be out of reach for several NATO countries, which have hovered around the previous 2% target. The US spent 3.2% of its GDP on defence spending in 2024, according to NATO estimates. Only three countries exceeded this share – Poland (4.1%), Estonia (3.4%) and Latvia (3.4%). Spain, which had allocated 1.24% of its GDP in 2024 to defence spending, announced it would not adhere to this target, earning Trump's ire and the potential for Spain-specific trade sanctions. Article 5 in the spotlight Article 5, or the collective defence clause, serves as the bedrock of NATO's existence. It says an attack against even one of the members would be considered an attack against all members. It also says that in the event of such an attack, each member would individually and collectively take 'such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.'' This 'One for All, All for One' principle has helped the organisation attract more members over the years. As the Russia-Ukraine War broke out in 2022, the historically neutral nations of Finland and Sweden made a bid to join it. During his presidential campaign, Trump revived his criticism of the organisation, saying the US under his presidency would choose not to defend a member under attack if it spends less than the agreed targets. On Wednesday, he was among the NATO allies who underlined their 'ironclad commitment' to come to each other's aid if attacked. 'They want to protect their country, and they need the United States, and without the United States, it's not going to be the same,' he told reporters. 'I left there saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a rip-off. And we're here to help them protect their country,' he said. Focus away from Ukraine Since 2022, every NATO summit has committed to aiding Ukraine in its war against Russia. Most NATO countries view Russia as a direct and immediate threat. The 2024 summit saw Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy be feted by then-US President Joe Biden and secure an assurance from NATO President Mark Rutte that Ukraine's path to NATO membership was 'irreversible'. This policy has been largely upended by Trump's return to the White House this January. Since his first term (2017-21), Trump has remained cordial with Russian President Vladimir Putin, reversing decades-long animosity between the US and Russia. In his second term, the Trump administration has ruled out the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, lashed out against Zelenskyy for being 'ungrateful', and has paused US military aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia. This set the stage for the NATO summit, as the Ukraine issue was relegated to the backseat. Unlike last year, when the NATO declaration took note of Russia's 'brutal war of aggression', the statement this year mentioned 'long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security' without specifically condemning Russia.
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Indian team in U.S. for last attempt at trade deal before July 9 deadline
A team of negotiators from India is in the U.S. for at least a two-day trip to conduct final negotiations for a 'mini trade deal' before the July 8 deadline elapses, The Hindu has learnt. The top items on the agenda, and the main hindrances to an agreement, are the entry of genetically-modified (GM) crops and cow milk into India, and the removal of the reciprocal tariffs imposed by the U.S.. This comes soon after U.S. President Donald Trump on June 26 hinted at a 'very big' deal coming up with India. 'We're having some great deals. We have one coming up, maybe with India, a very big one, where we're going to open up India,' Mr. Trump said during an event at the White House promoting passage of the GOP's tax and spending cuts legislation on June 26, 2025. July 8 marks the last day of the 90-day pause Mr. Trump had allowed on the 'Liberation Day' higher tariffs he had imposed on imports from other countries, including India. If that date elapses without either an extension or a trade deal between India and the U.S., then Indian exports to the U.S. will be subject to 26% tariffs. According to sources aware of the negotiations between the two countries, the U.S. and India are currently at loggerheads over the issues of the import of GM crops and cow milk into India. 'Both of these issues are very sensitive for India,' the source explained. 'GM crops will be a big hit to our domestic farmers, and cow milk is a cultural-religious issue.' India has not opened up either of these sectors in any of the free-trade agreements it has so far signed. Also Read | India and U.S. can only finalise 'mini' trade deal this year: Sources The Indian, on the other hand, will be trying to push the U.S. to waive the Liberation Day tariffs for India, and also reduce the increased tariffs it had levied on steel and aluminium imports. Overall, the U.S. is seeking duty concessions on certain industrial goods, automobiles, especially electric vehicles, and wines, petrochemical products, dairy, and agricultural items such as apples, tree nuts and genetically modified crops. India's broad demands are concessions for labour-intensive sectors such as textiles, gems and jewellery, leather goods, garments, plastics, chemicals, shrimp, oil seeds, grapes, and bananas. Budget 2025 already saw India reducing tariffs on a wide variety of items such as shrimp and shrimp paste, high-end motorcycles and automobiles, and some types of electronics. (The article has been edited to correct a factual error)
Mint
43 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Is Giorgia Meloni okay?': Internet reacts as Italian PM's facial expressions at NATO Summit go viral
The 2025 NATO Summit, held recently in the Netherlands, saw world leaders come together to discuss urgent global issues. However, it was Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni who unexpectedly became the centre of attention on social media — not for her political remarks, but for her expressive facial gestures during a press interaction. A short video of Meloni went viral online, showing her making dramatic and seemingly involuntary facial movements while speaking to reporters. The clip quickly spread across X (formerly Twitter), with users reacting with humour and curiosity, wondering what may have prompted her exaggerated expressions. "What's going on with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni?" one user questioned, while another commented, "Is Giorgia Meloni okay?" A third wrote, "How do you explain Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's facial expressions here?" The video fuelled more speculation, with comments like, "Too much caffeine?" and "She had a flashback of Macron whispering in her ear." One user even joked, "Some powerful cocaine." Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump made headlines for a different reason. He earned a new nickname — 'Daddy' — during the summit, thanks to a comment made by NATO Secretary-General and former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. The moment followed Trump's remarks on the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict. In a now widely-shared video, Trump likened the situation to a schoolyard brawl, saying, 'They've had a big fight, like two kids in a schoolyard. You know, they fight like hell. You can't stop them. Let them fight for about two, three minutes, then it's easier to stop.'* Rutte responded with a playful comment, 'And then Daddy has to sometimes use strong language.' The White House quickly joined in on the viral moment, posting a polished video montage of Trump's arrival at the summit set to Usher's track 'Daddy's Home.' The video included clips of Trump greeting leaders, including Rutte, adding to the meme's popularity online. Though the summit focused on serious matters, it was these light-hearted moments that grabbed the internet's attention.
