GEOPOLITICS: TRUMP’S “BOARD OF PEACE”

TRUMP’S “BOARD OF PEACE”

Diplomacy by Disruption or Peace by Power?

In global geopolitics, peace initiatives usually emerge from quiet negotiation rooms, multilateral institutions, and seasoned diplomats. Donald J. Trump, however, attempted something radically different during his presidency—what many analysts loosely describe as his “Board of Peace” approach: a personalized, deal-driven, leader-to-leader model of conflict resolution.

It was unconventional, controversial, and undeniably disruptive.

What Was Trump’s “Board of Peace”?

Trump did not formally establish an institution called a “Board of Peace.” Instead, the phrase captures his core philosophy:

Peace through direct negotiation, not prolonged diplomacy

Strongman-to-strongman engagement

Transactional deals instead of ideological alignments

Economic incentives over moral persuasion

In Trump’s worldview, global conflicts were not ancient moral problems—but bad deals waiting to be renegotiated.

Key Pillars of Trump’s Peace Strategy

1. Leader-Centric Diplomacy

Trump bypassed traditional diplomatic channels and spoke directly with adversaries:

Kim Jong-un (North Korea)

Vladimir Putin (Russia)

Xi Jinping (China)

Middle East leaders across divides

His belief: personal chemistry between leaders could succeed where institutions failed.

2. Peace Through Strength

Trump revived an old realist doctrine:

“If America is strong, war becomes unnecessary.”

Massive military spending

Open warnings to adversaries

Yet, remarkably, no new major wars during his term

This paradox—hawkish rhetoric paired with restraint—confused both allies and enemies.

3. The Abraham Accords: A Concrete Achievement

Perhaps the most tangible outcome of Trump’s peace approach was the Abraham Accords (2020):

Normalization of relations between Israel and

UAE

Bahrain

Later Sudan and Morocco

For decades, such agreements were considered impossible without resolving the Palestinian issue. Trump’s team reframed peace as regional cooperation, not ideological resolution.

Supporters hailed it as a diplomatic breakthrough. Critics argued it sidelined Palestinian aspirations.

4. North Korea: From Fire to Friendship

Trump’s North Korea policy stunned the world:

From “fire and fury” threats

To historic summits in Singapore and Hanoi

First sitting U.S. president to step into North Korea

While denuclearization did not materialize, communication replaced isolation, and missile tests paused for a period.

Was it symbolism without substance—or a necessary first step? History may still decide.

Critics Speak

Trump’s “Board of Peace” faced sharp criticism:

Undermined traditional alliances (NATO, EU)

Personalized diplomacy risked unpredictability

Human rights often took a back seat

Deals depended heavily on Trump himself, lacking institutional continuity

Many feared that peace built on personalities would collapse once personalities changed.

Supporters Counter

Supporters argue:

Endless wars were avoided

Dialogue replaced demonization

Global leaders were forced to think differently

Peace was pursued without exporting ideology

To them, Trump acted less like a missionary and more like a hard-nosed negotiator.

A New Model or a Dangerous Gamble?

Trump’s “Board of Peace” was neither traditional diplomacy nor reckless isolationism. It was deal-making geopolitics, rooted in realism, ego, leverage, and spectacle.

Whether one admires or opposes Trump, one truth stands clear:

He challenged the assumption that peace must always come through established systems.

TIMELINE OF KEY DIPLOMATIC MOMENTS (2017–2021)

2017

January – Donald Trump assumes office, declaring an “America First” foreign policy.

April – Orders a missile strike on Syria after chemical weapons use, signaling peace through strength.

September – UN speech warns North Korea of “total destruction,” escalating tensions dramatically.

2018

January – Opens diplomatic channel with North Korea via South Korea.

June 12 – Singapore Summit: Historic first meeting between a sitting U.S. President and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

July – Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, emphasizing direct leader-level engagement.

December – Announces partial U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria, underscoring anti-endless-war stance.

2019

February – Hanoi Summit with Kim Jong-un ends without agreement, exposing limits of personal diplomacy.

June – Trump steps into North Korea’s DMZ, a symbolic but unprecedented gesture.

September – Saudi oil facilities attacked; Trump refrains from military retaliation against Iran.

2020

January – Targeted killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani raises fears of war; escalation avoided afterward.

September – Abraham Accords signed at the White House (Israel–UAE, Israel–Bahrain).

October–December – Sudan and Morocco join normalization process with Israel.

2021

January – Trump leaves office with:

No new major wars started

Middle East realignments underway

North Korea talks stalled but communication channels intact

🔍 What the Timeline Reveals

Trump oscillated between hard power and personal outreach

Symbolism often preceded substance

Peace initiatives relied heavily on personal leadership, not institutions

Results were mixed—but historically unconventional

Timeline Takeaway

Trump’s “Board of Peace” timeline reveals a foreign policy driven less by doctrine and more by disruption. Confrontation often came first, dialogue followed, and deal-making replaced diplomatic ritual. While some initiatives—most notably the Abraham Accords—produced tangible outcomes, others remained symbolic or stalled. The pattern shows a leader willing to risk unpredictability to break long-standing deadlocks, trusting personal authority over institutional continuity. Whether viewed as bold realism or dangerous improvisation, Trump’s approach redefined how peace could be pursued in a fractured, multipolar world.

Conclusion

Trump’s peace efforts remind the world of an uncomfortable question:

Is peace achieved by shared values—or by shared interests?

His legacy in geopolitics is still unfolding. But his experiment with personalized, power-based peace diplomacy has already left an indelible mark on international relations.

Grateful thanks to ChatGPT for its great help and support in creating this blogpost!🙏

GEOPOLITICS: CHINA SURGES AHEAD

GEOPOLITICS: CHINA SURGES AHEAD

China surges ahead in global influence through strategic investments in critical technologies and infrastructure. This shift challenges longstanding Western dominance, reshaping geopolitics in the 21st century. Key sectors reveal China's rapid ascent, driven by state-led innovation and scale.

INTRODUCTION 

In an era where superpowers clash not with cannons but with code, circuits, and colossal infrastructure, China is rewriting the rules of global dominance. Once dismissed as the world's factory, Beijing now surges ahead as the innovation forge, outpacing the United States in high-stakes arenas from hypersonic rails to quantum leaps—heralding a seismic shift that could redefine the 21st century's power map.

High-Speed Rail Dominance

China operates over 45,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, surpassing the rest of the world combined, enabling efficient mass transit and economic connectivity.

 This network supports urban megacities and exports technology globally, outpacing US investments in legacy systems.

Electric Vehicles and Batteries

China produces 70% of global EVs and 94% of lithium iron phosphate batteries, with costs 40% lower due to supply chain control.

By 2025, EV sales could reach 15 million units annually, fueled by rare earth dominance and rapid adoption.

Renewable Energy Leadership

China manufactures over 80% of solar panels and leads in green energy R&D, accounting for 46% of top-tier publications versus 10% for the US.

This edge extends to wind and energy storage, positioning China as the clean energy powerhouse amid global sustainability demands.

Biotechnology and R&D Surge

China doubled clinical biotech trials and leads in high-quality scientific output across eight domains, including quantum communication with a 1,200-mile network.

Investments via "Made in China 2025" target medicine, agriculture machinery, and AI, closing gaps in semiconductors.

Strategic Implications

These advances, from robotics to hypersonics, give China leverage in 57 of 64 critical tech categories per ASPI tracking.

While the US holds nominal GDP lead, China's PPP growth and tech self-reliance signal a multipolar world, urging geopolitical recalibration.

Conclusion

As China's ascent accelerates—from dominating 80% of solar production to pioneering biotech frontiers—the West faces a clarion call: innovate or fade. This surge isn't mere momentum; it's a multipolar mandate, compelling nations to forge alliances, rethink strategies, and harness collaboration to navigate the new geopolitical frontier where technology crowns the victor.

Grateful thanks to PERPLEXITY AI for its great help and support in creating this blogpost!🙏🙏🙏

GEOPOLITICS: INDIA–BANGLADESH - A RELATIONSHIP AT A CROSSROADS

INDIA–BANGLADESH: A RELATIONSHIP AT A CROSSROADS

India and Bangladesh share more than a border.

They share history, rivers, culture, language, and memories — some painful, some proud, and many still unfolding. The relationship between the two countries is not merely diplomatic; it is deeply civilisational, shaped by shared struggles and lived geography.

A Relationship Born in Struggle

The events of 1971 were not merely a war but a humanitarian catastrophe, a GENOCIDE. 

Innocent people, especially children, were butchered, women raped and intellectuals systematically killed. India gave shelter and food to hapless millions of Bangladeshis. India’s intervention came at immense human and economic cost. 

This historical truth must remain central to collective memory, for relationships built on sacrifice cannot be sustained, if remembrance fades into selective amnesia.

The foundation of modern India–Bangladesh relationship was laid during Bangladesh’s liberation. India’s political, military, and humanitarian support at a critical moment in history played a vital and  decisive role in the birth of the new nation. 

This shared experience created a relationship unlike most bilateral ties — emotional, historical, and enduring.

Geography That Binds — and Tests

India and Bangladesh share a border of over 4,000 kilometres, one of the longest land borders in the world. Dozens of rivers — including the Ganga–Padma, Teesta, and Brahmaputra systems — flow across both nations.

This geography is both a blessing and a challenge:

Rivers sustain livelihoods but also generate disputes

Borders enable trade but demand vigilance

Proximity ensures cooperation is unavoidable

India and Bangladesh are, quite literally, destined to engage with each other — whether in harmony or tension.

Cooperation and Progress

Over the past decade, bilateral relations witnessed notable progress:

Resolution of long-pending land boundary issues

Expansion of trade and cross-border connectivity

Improved security cooperation

Collaboration in energy, power, and infrastructure

Bangladesh today is among India’s most important trading partners in South Asia. Rail, road, and inland waterway projects have begun to reshape regional connectivity, particularly benefiting India’s northeastern states.

This relationship is not one-sided. It is built on mutual dependence, a hallmark of mature diplomacy.

From Warmth to Unease

Despite this progress, recent months have seen unease creeping into the relationship. Diplomatic signals, public statements, and media narratives suggest a shift from warmth to caution.

These tensions do not arise from a single issue, but from a cluster of unresolved and emerging concerns — historical sensitivities meeting contemporary realities.

Key Areas of Recent Strain

1. Border Management and Civilian Deaths

Incidents along the border, including civilian casualties, remain deeply sensitive. Bangladesh has repeatedly expressed concern over the use of force, while India points to challenges such as smuggling and illegal crossings.

These incidents have generated public anger and diplomatic discomfort, highlighting the human cost of border management.

2. River Water Sharing

The long-pending Teesta water-sharing agreement continues to be a major irritant. For Bangladesh, water sharing is a question of survival and equity. For India, internal federal complexities complicate resolution.

Delays have fuelled frustration and mistrust, particularly during dry seasons.

3. Migration and Political Narratives

Discussions on illegal migration and citizenship, especially during election seasons in India, often sharpen political rhetoric. In Bangladesh, such narratives are perceived as accusatory and disrespectful, affecting public sentiment.

Words spoken for domestic politics do not remain confined within borders — they leave scars.

4. Strategic and Global Alignments

Bangladesh’s growing engagement with multiple global and regional powers has also drawn attention. While Bangladesh asserts its sovereign right to diversify partnerships, India remains sensitive about strategic balance in its immediate neighbourhood.

This has introduced an additional layer of geopolitical caution.

Media, Misinformation, and Noise

Another troubling factor is the role of media and social media. Sensationalism, half-truths, and amplified disagreements harden attitudes on both sides.

Diplomacy thrives on quiet dialogue, not noisy confrontation.

Why These Tensions Matter

India and Bangladesh share:

A porous border

Interlinked economies

Cultural and linguistic bonds

Common security concerns

Any prolonged mistrust affects not only bilateral relations but regional stability in South Asia. Simply put, neither nation benefits from sustained tension.

A Relationship Still Worth Repairing

Despite recent strains, it would be misleading to describe the relationship as hostile. Institutional cooperation continues, trade flows remain strong, and diplomatic channels are open.

This is not a collapse — but a stress test.

A test that calls for patience, restraint, and statesmanship.

The Way Forward

For balance to be restored:

Sensitive issues must be addressed frankly but respectfully

Border management must prioritise human life

Water-sharing disputes require political courage

Public rhetoric must be measured and responsible

Above all, both nations must remember that neighbours do not have the luxury of prolonged hostility.

Conclusion

India–Bangladesh relations stand at a testing phase. The warmth of the past has not disappeared, but it is being challenged by unresolved issues and changing regional realities.

History binds these two nations.

Geography compels cooperation.

Wisdom must now guide diplomacy.

Whether the present tensions remain temporary or deepen into lasting problems will depend on how calmly and maturely both sides choose to act — today.

Grateful thanks to ChatGPT for its great help and support in creating this blogpost. So also other media platforms that might have furnished relevant data.🙏🙏🙏