This article analyzes the conduct of U.S. President Donald Trump in the context of the Nonviolence Approach toward the Thai-Cambodian border conflict, particularly during episodes when Cambodia initiated violence. The study applies Johan Galtung’s frameworks of positive peace and structural violence, along with the diplomatic theory of realism, to assess whether Trump’s behavior contributed to or undermined peace in Southeast Asia. The findings reveal that Trump's approach was characterized by “strategic silence”, prioritizing economic tools to incentivize de-escalation rather than engaging as a genuine mediator.
1. Introduction
Clashes along the Thai-Cambodian border have threatened the stability of Southeast Asia and raised questions regarding the role of global powers like the United States in preserving peace. Under President Donald Trump, U.S. foreign policy shifted toward a national interest-oriented approach encapsulated by the “America First” doctrine, resulting in reduced involvement in regional conflicts. This article questions whether Trump’s conduct aligned with nonviolence principles or inadvertently perpetuated structural violence and regional instability.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Johan Galtung’s Nonviolence Approach
-
Negative Peace: Peace as the absence of direct violence.
-
Positive Peace: Peace based on justice, dialogue, and structural equity.
-
Structural Violence: Harm caused by neglecting or failing to address systemic injustices, especially in smaller or weaker states.
2.2 Realism in Diplomacy
Realism suggests that major powers conduct foreign policy primarily based on national interest, rather than ethical or humanitarian values.
3. Trump's Conduct Regarding the Thai–Cambodian Border Clash
3.1 Strategic Silence
Despite reports confirming Cambodia initiated hostilities, Trump issued no clear statement condemning the violence or calling for ceasefire. This silence may be interpreted as structural neglect, counter to the ideals of positive peace which demand proactive engagement for justice and reconciliation.
3.2 U.S. Disengagement from ASEAN
Under the America First doctrine, Trump reduced the U.S. role in multilateral ASEAN forums—evidenced by his absence at several ASEAN Summits and sending low-level delegations. This disengagement diminished the U.S.'s credibility as a mediator and peace guarantor.
3.3 Use of Economic Leverage
Trump opted to apply economic pressure to encourage conflict resolution. For instance, he threatened import tariffs as high as 36% if violence continued. Once a ceasefire was reached, trade negotiations were reopened. This approach reveals Trump's view of peace as a transactional benefit rather than a moral imperative.
4. Analysis Using the Nonviolence Framework
| Dimension | Trump’s Behavior | Analysis Based on Nonviolence |
|---|---|---|
| Diplomacy | Ignored regional conflict | Lacked proactive role in preventing violence |
| Rhetoric | No public support for dialogue | Failed to promote positive peace |
| ASEAN Role | Significantly reduced | Structural violence through neglect of smaller states |
| Stance on Aggressor | No condemnation of Cambodia | Undermines international justice |
5. Academic and Policy Recommendations
-
Revive U.S. Mediation Role in Southeast Asia
The U.S. should clearly condemn acts of initial violence and take on a neutral, active mediation role to uphold international justice. -
Reinvigorate Engagement with ASEAN
Active participation in ASEAN diplomacy would strengthen positive peacebuilding and increase trust among smaller regional actors. -
Separate Economic Interests from Conflict Resolution
While economic tools can support peace efforts, they should not replace diplomatic mechanisms such as dialogue and impartial mediation.
6. Conclusion
President Donald Trump’s conduct during the Thai–Cambodian border conflict exemplifies a foreign policy driven more by U.S. national interests than by a commitment to regional peace. His reliance on trade pressure instead of diplomatic mediation may have yielded short-term results, like ceasefire agreements, but undermined the U.S.'s moral leadership on the global stage. Moreover, this behavior reinforces patterns of structural violence by failing to address the root causes and justice needs of smaller states in the region.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น