US withdrawal from international organisations: Implications for global order

The Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from about 66 international organisations is surely going to have substantial adverse impact on a range of global issues, particularly on the efforts of almost every other country to ensure that global warming is not allowed to disrupt life on earth.
This is not the first time that the US has decided to withdraw from an international organisation nor is it the first time ever that President Donald Trump has done so. But in terms of the number of organisations that are going to miss American participation in coming years, Trump’s record in taking such a decision is certainly unprecedented.
It is clear, however, that it is not a whimsical or unthoughtful decision by the Trump White House. It is the result of months of review and deliberations by the task force appointed for this purpose. It is a well-considered step and the outcome of deliberations by a team of advisors of President Donald Trump.
Moreover, this is a strategic decision based on the understanding of Trump’s advisors that the investment of time, energy and money in those organisations did not bring the desired results or fulfil American interests. Nonetheless, this decision has been criticised by some US commentators as “ridiculous and dangerous, thoughtless and malicious action,” while some others have expressed the view it was an appropriate step to stop “wasteful expenditure” and that the US should also withdraw from many more such organisations.
This choice has harmful implications for the globe as well as for the United States. First of all, it means further erosion of multilateralism that is considered essential for good global governance. In the absence of multilateral consensus on issues affecting the globe, decision-making is either unilateral by a superpower or the consequence of clash of interest between more than one power. Genuine multilateralism suffered during the decades of the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union and these two powers took unilateral decisions in their respective spheres of influence.

After Soviet disintegration, there was a brief period of a unipolar global order when several international issues were dictated by the United States. But during both these eras, multilateral institutions continued to function, though less effectively. These institutions could exert a degree of moral pressure on the superpowers.
But the US withdrawal from dozens of international institutions would mean a death blow to multilateralism. Moreover, multilateralism functions relatively more efficiently under a multipolar world order than in a unipolar or bipolar international system. As the world appeared to be moving towards a multipolar order, the Trump Administration 2.0 seems to be determined to prevent the rise of a multipolar world order and, by implication, choking to death the concept of multilateralism.

More from Opinion

Has UN become obsolete? Why India needs its own sphere of influence Venezuela raid shows airpower drives dominance in modern conflicts

No country can challenge the sovereign decision of the Trump Administration to withdraw from international institutions, but the danger lies in Trump’s unilateralism where sovereignty of other countries is flagrantly violated by the Trump White House. The bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities, aerial attacks on Syria, Nigeria and Iraq, naval attacks on boats in the Caribbean and capturing the President of Venezuela and flying him to New York to hold his trial in an American court are developments that spell disaster for international peace and stability.

The United States will no longer be duty bound to abide by the norms set by international institutions, which it left, for peaceful trade and commerce. Many American experts bemoan the withdrawal from institutions that were created by the United States and which were beneficial for the international community and that did project American soft power.

Quick Reads

View All

Has UN become obsolete? Why India needs its own sphere of influence

The Donroe doctrine: How Trump’s Venezuela strike redefines US policy

Trump’s policy is surely aimed at strengthening American military prowess, but withdrawing from international commitments in the name of saving money will undoubtedly dismantle the structures that sustained US soft power. It is evident that the ideologues advising President Trump are unaware of the force of soft power and how it benefited the US in the entire post-Second World War era.
First, President Trump ended the US foreign assistance programme, then he disbanded USAID, then undermined democracy promotion schemes and now has withdrawn from scores of international organisations. Some argue that China will seek to fill the leadership vacuum due to Trump’s isolationist policies. But the international community does not seem to be ready yet to embrace another hegemon, if one abandons its leadership role in world affairs.

American hegemony was grudgingly accepted by the international community because it brought a certain number of rewards, while flexing of US military muscles and foreign interventions, including regime changes in the developing world, indubitably caused widespread resentment.
What is lamentable is the fact that President Trump does not appear to believe that what is good for the world is also good for the United States. And what is good for the US in his view could spell disaster for the global commons. He is already criticised by his fellow Americans as anti-science. His rejection of the danger of climate change will one day make the world suffer and the US itself would be a victim of climate change at a time Trump would no longer be occupying the Oval Office in the American White House.

(The writer is founder chairperson, Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies, and Editor, India Quarterly. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)