2020s Diplomacy

The United Nations officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, in San Francisco, right after the World War II, which was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust, which resulted in the killing of 11 million people and the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which caused the death of more than 210,000 people. One of the main focuses of the United Nations is to “achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”
However, in recent years, the United Nations has faced criticism for its diminishing influence amid escalating global instability. The organization’s ability to uphold international law is now tested as neoimperialism rises, and has been tested by conflicts throughout the 2020s. These conflicts prove that despite the development of communications and weaponry between countries, the finesse with which we negotiate with one another has greatly deteriorated.
On February 24, 2022, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin announced a “special military operation” to “demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” Ukraine. Minutes later, Russian forces bombed Ukrainian military infrastructure across the country: airfields, command centers, and cities like Kharkiv, Dnipro, and the capital Kyiv. Putin’s primary objective was (and still is) to bring Ukraine back into Russia’s sphere of influence, either by militarily conquering and annexing Ukraine—as Russia has done in some parts of western Ukraine—or more directly by installing a Russian ally in Kyiv. In response to the invasion, former President of the United States Joe Biden set three objectives for American policy: to ensure Ukraine’s survival as a sovereign and democratic state, to maintain unity among Western allies, and to avoid a direct war between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia.
On the other hand, despite these clearly defined objectives, Joe Biden’s strategy throughout the war during his presidential term has been widely criticized for its cautious and inconsistent execution. While the United States provided billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, the administration deliberately limited the scope and timing of advanced weapon deliveries, often delaying critical system delivery out of fear of escalating tensions with Russia. This incremental approach, sometimes described as “strategic hesitation,” arguably prolonged the conflict by allowing Russian forces time to regroup and adapt on the battlefield.
Ultimately, while Biden’s approach succeeded in preventing a broader global war, it also revealed the limitations of cautious diplomacy in the face of aggressive expansionism. The war in Ukraine has become a prolonged conflict of attrition (now in its fifth year), and the United States’ restrained response may have contributed to the instability that it had so ferociously tried to contain.
And so, between the start of the full-scale invasion of the country in 2022 and February of this year, estimates suggest around 1.4 million casualties, both military and civilian, making the conflict the deadliest one in European history since World War II. By the end of 2024, over 3.7 million Ukrainians were internally displaced.

Biden’s hesitancy here may not be the most egregious foreign policy error made, but it is certainly not an apt choice on the part of the Americans. His hesitancy in streamlining a response to Ukraine reflects further hesitancy in working with Russian and Ukrainian leaders toward a softer solution. Of course, one decisive move Biden made was the choice to not negotiate at all with Russia until they denounced their commencement of the war, which is notable for its intent but which ultimately didn’t make a world of difference in the actual peace-making endeavor.

Succeeding Biden, President Trump changed US foreign policy with the goal of making it something to remember. There can be no doubt that President Trump has been extremely influential in shaping not only domestic affairs but foreign policy on a larger scale, regardless of anyone’s personal opinions on his administration. When asked about his own legacy at the Future Investment Initiative Priority Summit in Florida, he remarked that he wanted to be remembered as a “great peacemaker.” He asserts his own responsibility for the resolution of—in various claims—anywhere from 3-8 ‘wars.’ The definition of war here is a bit subjective, as Trump tends to embellish certain conflicts slightly (although each has huge worldwide implications and of course domestic consequences for those closer to home). Among other disputes, the President asserts responsibility for alleviating Indian-Pakistani religious tensions (a claim refuted by prominent Indian leaders), Israeli-Iranian airstrike prevalence (in June of 2025), Egyptian-Ethiopian water right negotiations, and a border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. In addition to his self proclamation of such a diplomatic/political attitude, the president is reported to have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize twelve times by various world leaders and influentials (although the actual nomination lists are not released until 50 years after their submission, so this is data garnered off speculation). Now though, with his controversial and rash involvement in Iran, claims of peacemaking have an easier rebuttal. Although he may proclaim publicly that he is a peace-loving ruler, he cannot deny his willing initiation of this war. His bombing of civilians, in addition to military targets. His continuously aggressive attacks toward a country which presents no direct harm to his own (although Iran is responsible for subversive terror plots and the spread of anti-semitic hatred globally).

Perhaps part of the controversy comes from the changing meaning of diplomacy in the modern age. Old diplomatic endeavors—like the passage of the Marshall Plan to fund the rebuilding of European assets post WWI—were marked by not only a fantastic basis but also an exemplary leader to outline the premise of each deal and persuade relevant parties into agreement. Great presidents—with skills in not only oration but business, integrity, organization, and vision creation—crafted an American foreign policy system making the U.S. indispensable in negotiation.

But with the Trump administration, and with the modernization of what it means to negotiate (especially what it means to be successful in that endeavor) there has been a great shift. 

Donald Trump is not a diplomat, and his negotiation tactics are rather brutal and rash considering the laborious talks often experienced by other world leaders. In attempting to bring peace to the people of Israel and the Gaza Strip, Trump’s framework for peace emphasizes rather abstract priorities. Rather than emphasizing the humanitarian necessity for a ceasefire and for peace, Trump’s negotiation tactics placed heavy emphasis on the military means by which he believed the Israelis should exact their will. Additionally, the ceasefire agreements between the two countries lacked exact points of contention. There was little oversight regarding inner workings of the peace agreement in the long term, not to mention notation of where funding for some of the treaties inner workings would be sourced. 

While the American-encouraged ceasefire was successful after a few repeated attempts at peace, the lack of sureness in the treaty and the unreliable nature of its exacting parties could be a contributing factor to the continued violence in the Middle East today, which we see persisting with the war in Iran. In Iran, negotiation talks are so extremely charged that it’s no surprise after ceasefire issuings, immediate debate ensues regarding what was actually covered in peace agreements. Typically heavily debated and scrutinized, the agreements in the Iran War that President Trump has presided over seem rushed and unspecific: making the attack on Lebanon by Israeli drones a questionable (but not directly covered) issue within the global dialogue.

Additionally, using threatening language and a promise to “end a civilization” without an agreement from opposite parties, has been Trump’s main way of ensuring compliance. This threat-based system also applies to the economic sanctions the president has imposed nearly worldwide.
In terms of his tariffs, Trump’s usage of tariff threats (like the threat of 50% tariffs on countries supplying the Iranian Military) is unwarranted. Not only does it nearly guarantee a return of tariffs placed on America (meaning in other countries the price of American goods goes up so demand goes down), but these tariffs are extremely detrimental to the trust and relationships we have with other countries. 

In Canada, a long time US ally and trade partner, not only have tariffs been imposed on a wide variety of Canadian products (beginning in 2025), but more recently they have been threatened with even more severe measures. Recently, for pursuing a trade deal with China, Trump noted the possibility of a 100% tariff. These threats—and actions—have led to a deterioration in Canadian-American relationships. In addition to funds, less tourists are crossing the Canadian border into America and the Canadian president Mark Carney has publicly declared that after these egregious pushes by Americans, Canadians will only negotiate “on [their] terms.”

And respectively, in China in late 2025/early 2026, Trump threatened that 100% tariff increase. Such an increase would be detrimental not only to the Chinese economy (demand decrease) but to the American consumer, forced to pay such heightened prices for basic and previously available goods. There is no doubt that these threats are severe, and effective when wielded properly, but unfortunately when making such large promises the term “TACO trade, which stands for ‘Trump Always Chickens Out’” has been pegged. 

This is where the failure in negotiation lies, in the fact that we may be getting aggressive but we have no follow through in ensuring the American standard and goal is recognized, and furthered through our policy. 

The promise of what modern diplomacy was supposed to be (as articulated within the United Nations charter and later expanded upon goals) has been depleted by rising conflict and weakened cooperation, especially on part of the USA. The war in Ukraine showcases diplomatic hesitancy by Joe Biden, contributing to the prolonged conflict in the country rather than a solution. And, in contrast, Donald Trump’s aggressive threat rhetoric charges too soon into diplomatic agreements in a prohibitionary way to success. 

The shift in these two presidents' negotiation tactics, along with other foreign relationships, reflects the decreased role of international cooperation in this decade—something detrimental to the future maintenance of peace and the stemming of conflict now. Ultimately the 2020s, and the brash negotiation techniques within them, demonstrate a possibility that diplomacy could lose its effectiveness when bargaining for peace—leaving the world unstable despite its interconnectivity.