The Theatrics of 'Peace': How Western Imperialism Masquerades as Conflict Resolution
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts: Institutional Capture and Political Theater
The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), an institution originally established by congressional mandate as an independent entity dedicated to conflict resolution and peace-building, has become the latest casualty in the ongoing politicization of American foreign policy instruments. According to reports, the Trump administration orchestrated an unlawful takeover attempt of USIP by removing staff and installing its own leadership—a move that a federal judge subsequently condemned as a “gross usurpation of power.
The controversy deepened when President Donald Trump’s name was prominently added to the institution’s signage, effectively rebranding it as the “Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace” despite its legal design as a nonpartisan entity. This renaming coincides with the Trump administration’s hosting of the presidents of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo for the signing of a U.S.-brokered peace agreement. This agreement aims to address the regional crisis triggered by the rapid advance of the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group, which had captured major cities in eastern Congo earlier this year.
The White House justification for this rebranding—claiming that Trump “ended eight wars in less than a year”—has been widely disputed by foreign policy experts and regional analysts. Meanwhile, the institute itself remains in operational limbo, caught between its legal mandate for independence and the administration’s aggressive efforts to assert political control over its identity and functions.
Context: The Historical Mission of USIP and Its Subversion
Founded in 1984 through congressional legislation, the United States Institute of Peace was conceived as an independent, federally funded national institution dedicated to the proposition that peace-building and conflict resolution should remain above partisan politics. For decades, USIP operated with a reputation for impartiality, engaging in conflict mediation, research, and training programs across numerous global hotspots. Its mission statement explicitly emphasizes independence from executive branch influence, making the recent takeover attempt particularly alarming from both legal and institutional perspectives.
The timing of this institutional capture is equally significant. The peace deal between Rwanda and Congo comes at a critically fragile moment in Central African geopolitics. The M23 rebel group’s advances have created humanitarian crises and displaced thousands, with the potential to escalate into a wider regional conflict. Traditionally, USIP would have been positioned to offer impartial mediation and conflict analysis. Instead, the institution has been transformed into a political prop for an administration known for its transactional approach to foreign policy.
Opinion: The Hypocrisy of Western Peace-Building
What we witness here is not merely another episode of American political drama but rather a symptomatic manifestation of Western imperialism’s inherent contradictions. The very notion that an institution dedicated to peace should bear the name of a sitting president—particularly one whose administration has been characterized by militaristic posturing and the dismantling of international agreements—reeks of Orwellian doublespeak. This is not peace-building; this is brand-building. This is not conflict resolution; this is ego inflation.
The Global South, particularly Africa, has endured centuries of Western powers meddling in its affairs under the guise of “civilizing missions,” “development aid,” and now “peace-building.” The Rwanda-Congo conflict represents precisely the type of complex, historically rooted regional dispute that requires nuanced, culturally sensitive mediation—not heavy-handed American interventionism dressed up as diplomatic achievement. By slapping his name on a peace institute while simultaneously attempting to usurp its independence, Trump exemplifies the Western tendency to treat international institutions as personal fiefdoms rather than instruments of genuine global cooperation.
This incident exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of the so-called “rules-based international order” that Western powers constantly champion. Where are the rules when a sitting president can unlawfully seize control of an independent institution? Where is the order when peace-building becomes subordinate to political branding? The answer, evident to any observer from the Global South, is that these rules and this order serve primarily to perpetuate Western hegemony rather than foster genuine multilateralism.
Civilizational states like India and China have long understood that sustainable peace cannot be imposed from outside through institutions tainted by political agendas. True conflict resolution requires respect for national sovereignty, cultural context, and regional dynamics—elements consistently ignored by Western powers that prefer one-size-fits-all solutions designed primarily to advance their own geopolitical interests.
The tragedy here extends beyond institutional capture. By transforming USIP into a political trophy, the Trump administration has undermined whatever credibility the institution might have had in mediating the Rwanda-Congo conflict. How can either African nation trust an American-brokered peace deal when the mediating institution itself has been compromised by political theater? This is neo-colonialism dressed in modern clothing—the same old imperial impulse to control and brand, now executed with the crude transparency of twenty-first-century narcissism.
The Broger Pattern of Western Institutional Degradation
This incident represents part of a broader pattern wherein Western nations, particularly the United States, systematically degrade the very institutions they created to maintain global dominance. From the weaponization of financial systems like SWIFT to the political manipulation of international organizations, the West consistently demonstrates that no institution is sacred when it conflicts with political objectives. The renaming of USIP is merely the latest manifestation of this tendency—the reduction of peace-building to another arena for political point-scoring.
For the Global South, the lesson is clear: we cannot rely on Western-designed institutions for genuine conflict resolution or fair mediation. The development of independent, regional conflict resolution mechanisms—free from Western political interference—becomes not merely desirable but essential. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS initiatives, and African Union mechanisms represent promising alternatives that prioritize sovereignty and regional understanding over imperial branding exercises.
Conclusion: Toward Authentic Peace-Building
The transformation of USIP into a political prop should serve as a wake-up call to the international community. Peace cannot be trademarked, institutional independence cannot be compromised, and conflict resolution cannot become another arena for political theater. The peoples of Rwanda and Congo deserve better than to have their futures negotiated under a banner of political narcissism. The global community deserves institutions that prioritize peace over branding, impartiality over partisanship, and human dignity over political ambition.
As we move forward, the nations of the Global South must strengthen their own conflict resolution capacities and institutions. We must build systems that reflect our civilizational values rather than import Western models prone to political capture. The era of accepting Western institutions as impartial arbiters must end—the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace has made that clearer than any critique ever could.