أعاد الرئيس الأمريكي دونالد ترمب خلال خطاب تنصيبه في يناير الماضي مصطلح «السلام بالقوة»، وهو المصطلح ذاته الذي ارتكز عليه الرئيس الأمريكي رونالد ريغان خلال فترة الثمانينات ميلادية من القرن الماضي، وحقق الانتصار في الحرب الباردة وتراجع الشيوعية في أوروبا الشرقية، ثم نهاية الاتحاد السوفيتي في عام 1991، حيث تعود الجذور الأولى لهذا المصطلح إلى الخبير العسكري الروماني «فيجتيوس»؛ حينما عبّر عن ذلك صراحة: «إذا كنت تريد السلام فاستعد للحرب».
القوة في قاموس ترمب ليس بالضرورة أن تكون خيار الحرب، ولكن المزيد من الضغط السياسي والاقتصادي، وشرعنته بغطاء أخلاقي وسامٍ وهو السلام؛ وصولاً إلى أهداف أكثر تعبيراً عن المواقف الأمريكية في هذه المرحلة، وتحديداً في الجلوس على طاولة المفاوضات تحت الضغط، وربما الإذعان في قبول إملاءات التسوية.
خيار السلام بالقوة الذي يمارسه ترمب اليوم بين روسيا وأوكرانيا، وإسرائيل وحماس، وأيضاً بين إيران وإسرائيل، وما يسعى إليه في حربه الاقتصادية مع الصين؛ ليس بالضرورة أن يتحقّق بالمنهجية ذاتها، التي نجح فيها الرئيس ريغان؛ حينما واجه الاتحاد السوفيتي في حرب باردة طويلة، وانتهت بانتصاره، أو على الأقل الاستفادة من أخطاء السياسة الإصلاحية الراديكالية للزعيم السوفياتي ميخائيل غورباتشوف، ومن ثم التفاوض معه تحت الضغط، والوصول إلى حل سلمي للصراع الذي استمر لأربعة عقود.
التحدي اليوم، الذي يواجه ترمب لتحقيق السلام بالقوة، هو أن الطرف الذي يريد التفاوض معه لم يعد وحيداً كما كان الاتحاد السوفيتي سابقاً، وإنما تحول هذا الطرف إلى كتلة من الأطراف المتحالفة فيما بينها، فروسيا والصين وكوريا الشمالية وحتى إيران يشكّلون اليوم تجمعاً مضاداً لفكرة السلام بالقوة، وفي المقابل أيضاً التكتل الأوروبي مع أوكرانيا الذي لا يرى الفكرة الأمريكية ممكنة من دون انحياز أمريكي لأوروبا، وخصوصاً بعد الاجتماع الأخير لقادة النيتو، وما أسفر عنه قبل أيام من دعم أمريكي لأوكرانيا بصواريخ الباتريوت، والتمهيد لذلك بحملة مضادة تجاه الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين.
تحدٍّ آخر في المفاوضات الجارية حالياً لوقف إطلاق النار بين حماس وإسرائيل، حيث بات واضحاً أن السلام بالقوة وإن كان مطروحاً على الطاولة، لكنه يبقى مؤقتاً، وليس كافياً لتحقيق طموح التكتل العربي والأوروبي بحل الدولتين، وقيام دولة فلسطينية مستقلة جنباً إلى جنب مع إسرائيل؛ لتنعم المنطقة بسلام شامل وعادل ينهي حقبة طويلة ومريرة من الصراع.
صحيح الرئيس الأمريكي قادر على تحقيق السلام العالمي، ولكن لم تعد فكرة السلام بالقوة كافية لوحدها لمواجهة تكتلات دولية لديها مصالح وأجندات من تحقيق السلام؛ فالمنهجية الأمريكية تحتاج إلى تحديث، فما تحقق في العصر الروماني من السلام بالقوة، وما تحقق أيضاً في عهد الرئيس ريغان، ليس بالضرورة أن يتحقق بالطريقة ذاتها أمام دول أخرى متكتلة لمصالحها، وتملك الحق أيضاً في طرح مشروعها لتحقيق السلام بالقوة، وهو صراع يحتاج إلى تنازلات، أو على الأقل صياغة رؤية جديدة من المصالح المشتركة، وهو ما يطرحه الأوروبيون اليوم، وينتظرون تفاصيل الرد الأمريكي عليه، وربما تتضح تلك الرؤية خلال زيارة ترمب المرتقبة إلى بريطانيا في منتصف سبتمبر المقبل.
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
During his inauguration speech last January, U.S. President Donald Trump revived the term "peace through strength," the same term that U.S. President Ronald Reagan relied on during the 1980s, which led to victory in the Cold War and the decline of communism in Eastern Europe, culminating in the end of the Soviet Union in 1991. The roots of this term can be traced back to the Roman military expert "Vegetius," who explicitly stated: "If you want peace, prepare for war."
In Trump's lexicon, strength does not necessarily mean the option of war, but rather more political and economic pressure, legitimized by a noble moral cover, which is peace; aiming for goals that more clearly express American positions at this stage, specifically sitting at the negotiation table under pressure, and perhaps yielding to the impositions of a settlement.
The option of peace through strength that Trump is currently practicing between Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Hamas, and also between Iran and Israel, as well as what he seeks in his economic war with China, does not necessarily have to be achieved through the same methodology that President Reagan succeeded with when he faced the Soviet Union in a long Cold War, which ended in his victory, or at least by benefiting from the mistakes of the radical reformist policies of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and then negotiating with him under pressure to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict that lasted for four decades.
The challenge today that Trump faces in achieving peace through strength is that the party he wants to negotiate with is no longer alone as the Soviet Union once was; rather, this party has transformed into a bloc of allied parties. Russia, China, North Korea, and even Iran today form a counter-collective to the idea of peace through strength. In contrast, the European bloc with Ukraine does not see the American idea as feasible without American bias towards Europe, especially after the recent meeting of NATO leaders, which resulted in American support for Ukraine with Patriot missiles, and the groundwork for that was laid with a counter-campaign against President Vladimir Putin.
Another challenge in the ongoing negotiations for a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel is that it has become clear that while peace through strength may be on the table, it remains temporary and is not sufficient to achieve the aspirations of the Arab and European bloc for a two-state solution, leading to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel; so that the region can enjoy comprehensive and just peace that ends a long and bitter era of conflict.
It is true that the American president is capable of achieving global peace, but the idea of peace through strength alone is no longer sufficient to confront international blocs that have their own interests and agendas regarding peace; the American methodology needs updating. What was achieved in the Roman era through peace through strength, and what was also achieved during Reagan's presidency, does not necessarily have to be realized in the same way in front of other countries that are united for their interests and also have the right to propose their own project for achieving peace through strength. This is a conflict that requires concessions, or at least the formulation of a new vision based on common interests, which is what the Europeans are proposing today, and they are awaiting details of the American response to it. Perhaps this vision will become clearer during Trump's anticipated visit to Britain in mid-September.
In Trump's lexicon, strength does not necessarily mean the option of war, but rather more political and economic pressure, legitimized by a noble moral cover, which is peace; aiming for goals that more clearly express American positions at this stage, specifically sitting at the negotiation table under pressure, and perhaps yielding to the impositions of a settlement.
The option of peace through strength that Trump is currently practicing between Russia and Ukraine, Israel and Hamas, and also between Iran and Israel, as well as what he seeks in his economic war with China, does not necessarily have to be achieved through the same methodology that President Reagan succeeded with when he faced the Soviet Union in a long Cold War, which ended in his victory, or at least by benefiting from the mistakes of the radical reformist policies of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and then negotiating with him under pressure to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict that lasted for four decades.
The challenge today that Trump faces in achieving peace through strength is that the party he wants to negotiate with is no longer alone as the Soviet Union once was; rather, this party has transformed into a bloc of allied parties. Russia, China, North Korea, and even Iran today form a counter-collective to the idea of peace through strength. In contrast, the European bloc with Ukraine does not see the American idea as feasible without American bias towards Europe, especially after the recent meeting of NATO leaders, which resulted in American support for Ukraine with Patriot missiles, and the groundwork for that was laid with a counter-campaign against President Vladimir Putin.
Another challenge in the ongoing negotiations for a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel is that it has become clear that while peace through strength may be on the table, it remains temporary and is not sufficient to achieve the aspirations of the Arab and European bloc for a two-state solution, leading to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel; so that the region can enjoy comprehensive and just peace that ends a long and bitter era of conflict.
It is true that the American president is capable of achieving global peace, but the idea of peace through strength alone is no longer sufficient to confront international blocs that have their own interests and agendas regarding peace; the American methodology needs updating. What was achieved in the Roman era through peace through strength, and what was also achieved during Reagan's presidency, does not necessarily have to be realized in the same way in front of other countries that are united for their interests and also have the right to propose their own project for achieving peace through strength. This is a conflict that requires concessions, or at least the formulation of a new vision based on common interests, which is what the Europeans are proposing today, and they are awaiting details of the American response to it. Perhaps this vision will become clearer during Trump's anticipated visit to Britain in mid-September.


