Trump at the UN: Ending wars requires more than rhetoric

AT the United Nations General Assembly, Donald Trump painted himself as a peacemaker, boasting that his leadership had helped “end seven wars” and restrain conflict. Yet the substance of his speech revealed something very different: a leader who weakens the very pillars of cooperation needed to secure lasting peace. Most striking was his dismissal of climate change as the “greatest con job ever.” Climate change is already driving droughts, floods and food insecurity — all triggers of conflict. To deny this reality while claiming to preserve peace is a contradiction that exposes the emptiness of Trump’s rhetoric.

His denunciation of migration as a force that “destroys nations” was equally corrosive. Migration has long been part of human history, shaping societies and fuelling progress. Casting migrants as threats feeds xenophobia and fractures communities. Far from preventing conflict, such rhetoric breeds resentment and division. Peace is not secured by shutting doors. Trump’s broadside against the UN — branding it ineffective and hypocritical — further undermines his peacemaker claim. The UN is imperfect, but it remains the only global body that provides a framework for dialogue, humanitarian relief and peacekeeping. To attack it while presenting America as a guardian of peace is to weaken the very institutions that prevent wars from escalating.

For India, the lesson is evident. While maintaining strong relations with Washington, New Delhi must not be drawn into isolationist or sceptic politics. Instead, India should double down on multilateralism, climate leadership and inclusive global governance. Peace cannot be reduced to military restraint alone; it demands cooperation on shared human challenges. Trump’s UN speech revealed the paradox of a leader claiming credit for ending wars while fanning the conditions that ignite future ones. True peacemaking requires solidarity, not slogans.