Across multiple conflict zones—from the mineral-rich hills of eastern Congo to the contested temple sites on the Thailand-Cambodia border—a familiar pattern emerges: foreign intervention complicates and often worsens already volatile situations. In recent years, American diplomatic efforts, especially under the Trump administration, have produced headline-grabbing agreements while sidestepping the structural causes of conflict. Whether through strategic alignments, economic opportunism, or misguided humanitarianism, Washington’s involvement has frequently undermined peace and sovereignty. A survey of ongoing crises in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Myanmar, Sudan, and Southeast Asia reveals how global power projection, cloaked in the rhetoric of stability, peace, democracy, and prosperity often exacerbates local suffering and instability. …

The humanitarian impact is less severe than in Congo or Sudan, but displaced border communities face hardship. Trump’s mediation, while less prominent than the DRC deal, risks overhyping U.S. influence. This dispute is best resolved bilaterally or through ASEAN mechanisms. As demonstrated in innumerable cases, foreign meddling, whether by Washington, Beijing, or anyone else, often inflames nationalist tensions rather than quelling them.

These four conflict zones—each with distinct histories and dynamics—are unified by a troubling theme: outside powers, including the United States, too often prioritize strategic or economic objectives over lasting peace. The U.S. role in backing Uganda in the 1980s and 1990s helped catalyze instability in the Great Lakes region, contributing indirectly to the Congo wars. Washington’s support for South Sudan’s independence, driven more by political theater than pragmatic foresight, left the new nation ill-equipped to govern and vulnerable to civil war. In Myanmar and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, U.S. and Chinese interests have turned domestic conflicts into proxy battlegrounds. Lasting solutions cannot be brokered in Washington boardrooms. They must emerge from the lived realities and demands of the people affected. Peace rooted in sovereignty, not in resource deals or geopolitical maneuvering, remains the only ethical and reasonable course.