WAR clouds still linger over parts of the world, but not without some encouraging signs of peace.
Whether these signs can translate readily into actual peace depends on certain key factors. These include the commitment of the principals beyond their rhetoric – or their proxies.
Another factor is what drives the principals to real peace, just a show of peacemaking, or mere indifference perpetuating conflict. Peace pledges are often only cynical manipulation for public relations and political capital.
Yet another factor is the definition of “peace” itself. What exactly do the belligerents mean by peace when they claim to seek it?
Real peace is more than a ceasefire, although ceasefires can be a start. It must lead to an agreement for peaceable relations in a timely and accommodating fashion.
The root causes of conflict must be addressed jointly and agreeably, with or without a facilitator, mediator or arbitrator. There must be no return of hostilities on account of the same grievances.
The Korean War two generations ago saw only a cessation of conflict with a 1953 armistice, not a signed peace treaty. Real peace still has to be established on the Korean peninsula.
US President Donald Trump is attempting to play peacemaker between Russia and Ukraine. He also tried to get Thailand and Cambodia to cease hostilities.
Both efforts have been limited, but for different reasons. More is needed substantively for claims of achievement to be credible.
Russian military intrusion into Ukraine was in response to Nato plans to expand up to Russia’s doorstep. Ukraine was already teeming with anti-Russia sentiment and action by February 2022, following the US overthrow of a democratically elected and neutral Ukrainian government.
The legality of Russia’s actions aside, its national security interests being subjected to Western military expansion needs to be acknowledged as a major factor. Russian interests derive from a neutral and peaceful Ukraine, not outright irredentism or complete annexation.
Peacemaking in Ukraine is complex and challenging, requiring careful and thoughtful phases. Some mutual understanding must first be achieved between the US and Russia as principals.
Ukraine’s and Europe’s demand for inclusion must be met but later. To assure progress, Russia and the US as the leading member of Nato must meet first.
The dispute between Thailand and Cambodia is no less complex and intriguing. Open conflict has stopped for now, with Malaysia as Asean Chair doing more than the US to effect the ceasefire.
Realistically, neither the Ukraine war nor the Thai-Cambodian dispute is amenable to early resolution. The latter operates on three levels, and is likely to fester indefinitely as long as the bilateral political climate remains hostile.
First, there is the border dispute over territorial demarcations. Despite intense focus on the historical differences, the realities of the bilateral dispute go beyond the border regions.
Second, Thailand sees the operations of scam syndicates in border areas as causing losses in tourism revenue and is shutting them down. Although Cambodia says it is doing the same, some opposition leaders have accused the government of benefiting from such operations.
Third, Cambodia harbours a sense of betrayal over joint deals intended to benefit both leaderships. This was followed by Phnom Penh’s release of a recorded private phone conversation with Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra compromising her relations with the military.
These signal a permanent break in personal ties between the ruling Hun and Shinawatra families. Relations will remain tense and troubled if both remain in office.
The differences may give way to a long-term cessation of conflict, but something of the dispute would remain. In Thailand a leadership change may only be a matter of time now, despite a court decision clearing Paetongtarn’s father Thaksin Shinawatra of lese majeste charges on Friday.
Trump may genuinely be motivated in pushing for peace. However, more work on actual achievement on the ground is needed before a Nobel Peace Prize is merited.
Trump is keen to win the prize so as not to be outdone by Barack Obama, who won it in 2009. On balance, Trump has been less involved in causing war casualties such as the killing of Afghan villagers than Obama.
For a country so widely involved in wars, a US president only needs to step back somewhat to be seen as an outstanding global peacemaker. Other countries such as Malaysia, which actually hosted peace talks between Thailand and Cambodia, tend to be less “visible” to the Norwegian Nobel Committee making the selection.
For the US, the most meaningful act of peace is neither in Ukraine nor between Thailand and Cambodia. It is in Gaza, but as usual there has been no policy decision to restrain much less halt Israel’s continuing genocide against the Palestinians.
Yet this will not discredit Trump’s eligibility, because the peace prize is an affirmation of Western values rather than universal ones.
Bunn Nagara is Director and Senior Fellow at the Renaissance Strategic Research Institute, and Honorary Fellow of the Perak Academy. The views expressed here are solely his own.
