Paper Promises and Political Posturing: Trump Seeks Credit as African Nations Sign Fragile Peace Deal

In a long-awaited moment of diplomacy, two African nations locked in years of brutal conflict have signed a peace agreement, raising cautious hopes across the continent. But even as leaders embraced in a televised ceremony, the headlines quickly shifted, not just to the fragility of the truce, but to former U.S. President Donald Trump, who now claims the credit.

Photo Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The agreement, brokered after months of intense negotiations led by the African Union and regional leaders, aims to end a conflict that has devastated communities on both sides of the border. Disputed territory, resource control, and political interference had long fueled a cycle of violence that neither side seemed able — or willing — to stop.

Now, with the ink barely dry, Trump has entered the narrative with his signature bravado.

“This peace wouldn’t have happened without the foundation I built,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. “They’re calling it a regional win, but we know who actually got them to the table first. You’re welcome, Africa.”

A Claim Lacking Context

While Trump did host initial talks during his presidency and made efforts to insert the U.S. into African mediation efforts, analysts and diplomats say his involvement was peripheral at best. The current peace deal is the result of painstaking diplomacy led by African leaders, notably Kenya and Ethiopia — and backed by AU mechanisms, not Washington.

“Trump’s narrative is not only misleading — it undermines African agency,” said Dr. Grace Amadou, a regional affairs specialist based in Dakar. “This was not a peace imposed by outsiders. It was carved out, day by day, by African negotiators and civil society groups.”

U.S. officials under the Biden administration were notably silent in response to Trump’s statements, choosing instead to praise the “courageous leadership” of the nations involved and calling the deal a “turning point for regional stability.”

Peace or Pause?

Despite the ceremonial optimism, many experts warn that the peace is, for now, merely procedural. No concrete enforcement mechanism has been confirmed, and several militant groups have yet to agree to disarm. Human rights observers also point to ongoing ethnic tensions and unresolved war crimes as fault lines that could rupture the agreement at any moment.

“This is a roadmap, not a destination,” said Adama Ndlovu, a peacebuilding consultant who has worked in both countries. “There’s relief, yes — but also trauma, distrust, and deep wounds that cannot be papered over by a signature.”

For many civilians, the ceremony was greeted with guarded hope. Markets reopened in some conflict zones, and schools in border towns have begun preparing for the return of displaced students. Yet residents remain skeptical, having seen past ceasefires dissolve within months.

The Bigger Picture

Beyond Trump’s self-congratulations lies a deeper narrative: Africa’s increasing ownership of its conflicts, and its solutions. The peace agreement, while tenuous, represents a shift from dependency on global powers to regional resilience and responsibility.

Still, as history has shown, peace is not a moment, it is a process. And for these two nations, that process is only just beginning.