Loading Now

Trump 2.0 and the rise of fragmented multilateralism – Firstpost

Trump 2.0 and the rise of fragmented multilateralism – Firstpost



Multilateralism, as a framework for global governance, traces its roots to the early 20th century, marked by the establishment of the League of Nations in 1920, which sought to prevent conflicts through collective security and diplomacy. However, its limitations became evident with the outbreak of World War II. The post-war era ushered in a new phase of multilateralism, spearheaded by the United States, which emerged as the dominant global power. Through initiatives like the Bretton Woods Conference (1944), the US played a pivotal role in creating institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, designed to stabilise global economic systems and foster post-war reconstruction.

The formation of the United Nations in 1945 further institutionalized multilateralism, with the US at its helm as a founding member and primary financier. Over the decades, the US championed multilateral trade liberalization through frameworks like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organisation (WTO), while also leading security alliances like NATO. This leadership reflected a strategy to embed liberal democratic values, economic interdependence, and collective security within a rules-based international order.

Ironically, the same United States that once championed and upheld multilateralism could now lead its unmaking under Trump 2.0 presidency, as isolationist policies, protectionist trade practices, and the erosion of international commitments threaten to dismantle the very order it constructed—ushering in a phase that might be the funeral of multilateralism, at least for the next four years.

During his first presidency, Donald Trump took several significant actions again pointing towards a decisive shift away from multilateralism. One of the most prominent moves was his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017, citing concerns that it unfairly disadvantaged American industries while allowing other countries, particularly China, to benefit economically. Trump argued that the agreement imposed unfair costs on the United States without sufficient reciprocal commitments from other nations, effectively undermining global efforts to combat climate change through a coordinated framework. But Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement on his first day in office in 2021. The Biden administration introduced a range of policies to tackle the nation’s role in climate change and reducing emissions.

On 20th January 2025, one of the first executive orders was to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, signalling a retreat from global climate commitments. This decision has significant implications for the larger global climate change agenda, especially on mechanisms like the Loss and Damages Fund, which relies on developed nations’ contributions to support vulnerable countries. Already in limbo, the fund now faces greater uncertainty, jeopardizing financial support for the Global South. The move undermines multilateralism, risks stalling international climate action, and deepens inequities between developed and developing nations.

Similarly, Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) in July 2020. However, it didn’t materialise, and later Biden vetoed it. This decision came at a time when global coordination was critical to managing the pandemic, raising concerns about the implications of the US stepping back from international health governance.

Again, through another executive order on 20th January, Trump has signalled the US withdrawal from the WHO. The Trump administration justified the United States’ withdrawal from the WHO on several grounds, emphasizing perceived inefficiencies, political biases, and financial inequities. The administration criticized the WHO’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly its response to the outbreak in Wuhan, China, and its failure to implement necessary reforms to improve global health governance.

The order raised concerns over the organisation’s susceptibility to undue political influence from member states, which, according to the administration, compromised its independence and effectiveness. Additionally, the administration cited an imbalance in financial contributions, noting that the US, despite being the largest donor, bore a disproportionately high financial burden compared to other major nations like China.

The focus on an “America First” doctrine could lead to further disengagement from organisations seen as not aligning with US interests. Beyond outright withdrawal, Trump could adopt more indirect strategies to weaken international organizations. Noncompliance with rules, absence from critical meetings, and obstruction of key initiatives could render these bodies less effective. For example, Trump previously paralysed the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanism by blocking appointments to its appellate body, undermining its ability to enforce trade rules. Such actions destabilise global governance and could encourage other countries to disregard institutional norms, further eroding international trust and cooperation.

Another method could involve withholding essential data that these organisations rely on to function. Institutions such as the World Bank, which depends on economic statistics, or environmental agencies that monitor carbon emissions require accurate and timely information to operate effectively. The United States could significantly impair their effectiveness by refusing to share data.

This strategy could be compounded by cutting funding to these organisations, many of which depend heavily on US financial contributions. A reduction in funding could cripple their ability to carry out essential operations, much as the defunding of certain agencies during Trump’s first term hindered their crisis response capabilities.

Creating rival organisations might also be on the table. By establishing alternative institutions, Trump could divert resources and influence away from existing multilateral bodies, weakening their capacity to address global challenges. Such platforms could serve as political tools to amplify US interests under the guise of multilateralism while sidelining more established organizations.

Furthermore, Trump could attempt to reshape international organizations from within, steering them toward serving narrow US interests rather than fostering broad-based global cooperation. By redirecting these bodies’ focus to align with domestic political goals, his administration could co-opt their legitimacy and resources, effectively weaponising them to promote unilateral objectives.

Thus, the future of multilateralism over the next four years could be marked by significant fragmentation and weakening, especially if the United States retreats further from its traditional leadership role. The decline of US engagement may embolden other powers to pursue unilateral or regional strategies, undermining the legitimacy and effectiveness of global institutions.

Facing financial shortfalls and political interference, multilateral bodies might struggle to maintain cohesion and fulfil their mandates. In parallel, rival organisations tailored to specific national or regional agendas could proliferate, exacerbating global governance inefficiencies. However, this period could also spark a recalibration of multilateralism, with emerging economies and middle powers stepping up to fill the leadership vacuum, seeking to create frameworks that better reflect the priorities of the Global South. This reorientation might lead to a more pluralistic but less coherent global governance system, where coalitions of willing nations tackle specific issues without a unified rules-based order.

Aditya Sinha (X:@adityasinha004) is a public policy professional. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.



Source link

Post Comment