Donald Trump has typically displayed minimal interest in . However, despite his administration’s perceived lack of engagement in regional stability efforts, Trump is scheduled to attend ASEAN’s annual summit in Kuala Lumpur this Sunday, marking his first attendance. His primary objective, however, appears to be less about mastering multilateral diplomacy—an area where the U.S. President has shown limited inclination—and more about securing another peace agreement to take credit for. Indeed, sources reported earlier this month that the proposed “Kuala Lumpur accord” might be the sole motivator for Trump’s presence at the ASEAN summit.
Trump has already listed the May peace agreement that was reached between Thailand and Cambodia, two neighboring ASEAN member states, for which the U.S. facilitated a July cease-fire through trade leverage, among the global conflicts he claims to have “ended.” This list also encompasses conflicts between , , , , , and from his first term as well as .
Though some of these conflicts have yielded peace accords—many still plagued by unresolved tensions and even renewed violence, including the situation between Cambodia and Thailand—Trump has used this compilation, which features both actual successes and exaggerations, to bolster his image as a “President of peace.” He expected to win the , which was instead awarded earlier this month to , and various global leaders, , have humored him with as part of an apparent strategy of “.”
Experts, however, contend that whether the peace agreement between Cambodia and Thailand will prove a true accomplishment or merely an exaggeration remains uncertain. Furthermore, doubts persist regarding Trump’s dedication to the accord once he has participated in the signing ceremony.
“It requires sustained political pressure,” Mark S. Cogan, an associate professor of peace and conflict studies at Kansai Gaidai University in Osaka, Japan, informed TIME. He questioned, “Will the United States lose focus? Will its interest in developments between Thailand and Cambodia persist after Trump has overseen this agreement, or will he be diverted by other matters?”
Cogan further pondered, “Does the United States genuinely concern itself with a comparatively minor—and I use that term with significant reservation—unresolved territorial dispute between Thailand and Cambodia? Does it compare to other major conflicts? Certainly not. Is it deeply rooted and volatile? Absolutely. But what is the actual impact on the United States? Minimal,” Cogan added. He then asked, “What benefit does Trump derive from this?”
According to Cogan, the agreement’s success depends on “third-party” oversight to guarantee adherence from both nations. He anticipates “stress tests” wherein parties will likely exchange accusations of cease-fire breaches. Cogan noted that Washington ostensibly possesses the capacity and trustworthiness to enforce compliance. However, his skepticism is shared by others.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a Thai scholar and professor at Kyoto University’s Center for Southeast Asian Studies in Japan, conveyed to TIME that Trump’s engagement in regional peacemaking seems transactional: “The persistent external pressure required for enforcement will likely vanish after the signing ceremony concludes.”
The details of the accord itself remain uncertain. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who holds this year’s rotating ASEAN chairmanship, announced on Thursday that the specifics of the agreement are still being “.”
Although Cambodia has expressed eagerness , with a ruling party spokesperson declaring, “we are ready at any time” to sign an agreement, Thailand’s government, having recently assumed power after the previous administration was dissolved over its conflict management, has shown greater caution about being rushed into the process. Pavin noted that they are “welcoming the stability but wary of Trump potentially favoring the Cambodian side.”
The relatively new Thai Prime Minister, , asserted that his administration “will not permit our nation to be exploited by neighboring states or any other country. We are obligated to safeguard the national interest to the fullest extent possible,” he added.
Pavin suggested that Trump might offer “the crucial leverage needed to finalize the agreement.” However, Pavin views the agreement as “likely to succeed as a short-to-medium-term stabilization measure” but anticipates it will remain “inherently fragile as a foundation for enduring peace.”
Even Cambodia, despite its desire for an agreement, has delineated the boundaries of its potential concessions. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet stated on October 19 that the pact aims “to establish conditions and codes of conduct that foster an environment conducive to ending the conflict and re-establishing relations between the two nations.” Yet, Hun Manet specified that neither the initial July cease-fire nor the forthcoming agreement implies “that either party consents to relinquish its legal right to control territory under its sovereignty.”
Pavin concluded, “The agreement’s durability is questionable because it does not resolve the fundamental border dispute concerning territory and historical maps; it merely defers the conflict.”