- While Trump cited reasons for the unfair targeting of Israel at the UNHRC, he also called for a review of the US’s participation in UNESCO, doubting an “anti-American bias”.
- A key reason for the US withdrawal from the WHO was the disproportionate contributions from countries like China which contribute 90% less than the US despite having a significantly larger population.
- The withdrawal of the US sets a negative precedent for other countries as these withdrawals destroy global structures of trade, health and conflict resolution that bring some semblance of order to the anarchic world.
- It is definitely in the interest of multilateralism to prevent a breakdown of global institutionalism, thus, a good place to begin would be by speeding up the process of reforms.
Introduction
Since January 20, this year, the world has been watching in disbelief as President Donald Trump’s drastic policies alter the landscape of international affairs with every executive order. The latest developments are the US withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). This move comes amid several other decisions that saw the world’s hegemon withdraw from international agreements and organizations, beginning with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Paris Climate Accord. These withdrawals, along with Trump’s new tactic of achieving US foreign policy targets by threatening countries with tariff impositions raise a significant question about the state of multilateralism today.
Why is the US withdrawing from Multilateral Organizations?
On February 4, President Trump announced the withdrawal of the US from UNHRC and the stopping of funding to the UNRWA, a funding agency established by the UN General Assembly in 1949 to assist Palestinian refugees. While Trump cited reasons for the unfair targeting of Israel at the UNHRC, he also called for a review of the US’s participation in the United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), doubting an “anti-American bias”. Previously during his first term, Trump had similarly pulled out of both of these UN agencies, accusing the international bodies of having a chronic bias against Israel and Jewish history. As the US has been a historical ally of Israel because of its large domestic Jewish population that makes up the majority of its economic elites, a coupling of US-Israel interests is expected within any organization.
However, this time, the US’s three-year term as a member of the UNHRC – composed of 47 member nations and 193 non-council members – had already come to an end on 31st December 2024, technically making it an observer state that “cannot withdraw from an intergovernmental body it is no longer a part of” as explained by Pascal Sim, spokesperson of the UNHRC. The US will thus still automatically be an informal observer state, but will not participate in the Council’s core functions such as the adoption of resolutions and reviews on urgent human rights situations.
Earlier, on January 20, Trump signed an executive order, pulling the US out of the World Health Organization (WHO) condemning the organization for “mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic” which according to the US’s official stance, “arose out of Wuhan, China”. The US order also accused the WHO of being politically influenced by other member states, meaning China, and blamed it for failures in bringing reforms during global health crises. A key reason, however, was the disproportionate contributions to the organization while other countries such as China contribute 90% less than the US despite having a significantly larger population. Historically the USA has been the largest donor to the organization, contributing up to one-fifth of its total budget in 2022 and 2023, millions of dollars more than Germany, the second-largest donor.
Similarly, Trump’s executive order withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Agreement stating that “these agreements steer American taxpayer dollars to countries that do not require, or merit, financial assistance in the interests of the American people.” As Article 28 of the Agreement allows parties to withdraw with written notification, the US Conservative point of view prioritizes American economic growth over fossil fuel regulations. Further, the US considers the agreement to be ineffective as major polluters such as China and India continue to emit greenhouse gases to power their development while advanced countries are asked to pay the bills.
Therefore, the US withdrawal from multilateral organizations is fuelled by the country’s domestic economic interests. Be it the WHO donations, the Paris Accord energy regulations, or the UNHRC crackdown on Israel which doesn’t sit right with its domestic Jewish elite lobbies, Trump 2.0’s MAGA realigns US foreign policy with domestic interests by patching the leak of American funds into the hands of other countries and reorienting the dollars towards nation-building.
The Impact of US Withdrawals on Multilateralism
As an offshoot of the Liberal theory of international relations, collectivism has been the driving force behind the existence of the United Nations, the highest international body created to prevent wars and bring countries together to tackle the biggest global challenges. To harmonize collaboration between countries on these global platforms, multilateralism shapes the foundational principles and modus operandi that guide the functioning and arrangements of global institutions, such as reciprocity, dispute settlement systems, and collective interest.
In a world challenged by health crises, conflicts, and climate change that spill beyond borders, multilateralism is the only hope for collective action. However, recent developments of US withdrawals from top international agencies in the world raise the question: how successful can global action be without the participation of the hegemon? The impacts are looming.
Firstly, the withdrawal of the US sets a negative precedent for other countries. Recently, Israel announced its withdrawal from the UNHRC due to an “anti-semitism bias” in the organization. In light of the events unfolding in West Asia, what is needed from parties involved in the conflict is increased engagement to agree rather than backing off altogether. Similarly, Argentina declared that it would follow the USA’s lead and pull out of the WHO due to poor “health management during the pandemic” and not allow an international organization to interfere in its sovereignty. One might even expect other countries to do the same and set off a domino effect.
Secondly, these withdrawals destroy global structures of trade, health and conflict resolution that bring some semblance of order to the anarchic world. The investment, joint efforts, management and institutionalism created have taken decades to set up but it doesn’t take longer than one order to break the entire system down.
Lastly, today’s interconnected global affairs balance a system of intricate and complex interdependence in which an impact in one structure affects all other structures. This was witnessed already during the pandemic in which a global health crisis brought the entire world to a standstill. Similarly, the Russia-Ukraine war triggered a breakdown of global supply chains, fluctuations in oil prices and a foodgrain crisis.
These events prove that contemporary challenges have cross-border impacts, therefore, multilateral efforts at dispute settlement are as much in a country’s national interest as are its purely domestic matters. Thus, withdrawing from multilateral platforms doesn’t fit into the setting of today’s multipolar, interdependent global order.
The Impact on the Global South
Trump’s adventurous policies were not only limited to withdrawals from global platforms. He has also adopted a tariff-threat technique more akin to waving the stick than dangling the carrot to get countries to comply. Perhaps gone are the days of the old diplomacy, as China, Mexico, Canada and even groupings such as the BRICS find themselves on the receiving end of these newer hard power tactics. While Trump secures America’s immediate interests, his tactics might have larger repercussions against his long-term interests. America’s increasing absence in the geopolitical sphere resulting from US withdrawals and tariff barriers leaves a void for other emerging economies to fill with easier trade policies. This could trigger a shift in power balances benefitting the Global South countries, and reshaping global governance. While their rise was inevitable, the current American protectionist policies could act as a catalyst in propelling them forward as the more reliable “Big Brother” in times of crisis, clearing their path towards hegemony.
As “great power requires great responsibility”, so being a hegemon requires a country to make calculated but risky investments in developmental policies aimed at smaller powers. If the US is unwilling to pay this price any further, as seen through the retraction of the USAID program, other major powers such as China would be more than pleased to take over the baton. While this void would lead to increased competition amongst major powers for leadership position, their increased involvement in international platforms could also be beneficial for global governance by having newer voices to represent the smaller countries. Moreover, global causes such as combatting climate change and preserving human rights could gain new impetus by including diversified representation and fresh perspectives.
A ‘Mixed Bag’ for India
For India, Trump’s policies pose both challenges as well as opportunities. As the US is one of India’s largest trading partners, the tariff threats reduce India’s access to American markets. Therefore, bilateral trade ties risk going through some hindrances that might be circumvented through common strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. At the global level, the absence of the US can be both harmful and beneficial to India, depending on the platform. For example, in regional security groupings and platforms such as the WHO in matters of strategic and geopolitical influence, having the US as an ally helps India counter Chinese influence. On the other hand, not having the US on platforms for climate action becomes a challenge for India to ensure its sustainability without being able to hold the biggest emitter of the Global North accountable for its actions. Therefore, the impact of Trump’s policies can affect India both ways and how India turns crisis into opportunity remains to be seen.
Can Institutional Reforms Restore Multilateralism?
The realist perspective cannot blame Trump’s bold choices in keeping American domestic “Nation First” interest in mind. However, can there be a middle way that doesn’t result in the withdrawal of the hegemon from the highest levels of multilateralism? Liberal institutionalism argues that countries will willingly form global institutions if their national interest is preserved through the collective interest. Therefore, these institutions need to be strong in structure and governance. However, as stated by Trump: “I’ve always felt that the U.N. has tremendous potential. It’s not living up to that potential right now. It hasn’t for a long time,” perhaps institutional reforms are the need of the hour to give countries a reason to stay.
The WHO reforms must address the bureaucratic structure of the organization and the over-reliance on the highest donors that set its agendas and shape its policies. To do so, the team of health experts can be diversified and recruited from across countries and health sectors instead of being picked from a handful of nations. Moreover, Global South countries can step up to fill the void left by the US: this would not only help the cause of multipolarity but also provide a counter-balance to the dominating voices within the organization.
Likewise, the UNHRC reforms must address two key aspects: its pick of human rights issues to be discussed and the selection of its council members. Instead of an overemphasis on Israel, attention must also be given to countries such as North Korea, Yemen, and Libya to broaden its agenda. The process which allows the unopposed election of its nominated members, as already seen in 2018 and 2019 needs to be reformed and a system of review needs to be set up to prevent human rights-abusing countries from gaining influential seats at the Council.
Similarly, the Paris Accord under the United Nations Framework for the Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) can be modified to hold greater accountability for developing nations in meeting emission targets to reduce the climate financing burden on advanced countries. While voluntary emission targets are the more practical approach due to the lack of enforcement mechanisms for compulsory targets, the timely submission of transparency reports should be a starting point to better negotiate climate action with all stakeholders.
Despite all the suggestions, institutional reforms are a complex process, not exempt from political influence. Moreover, the limitations in international law pose a challenge in creating enforceability in global institutions. However, no stone can be left unturned to strengthen multilateralism for the collective benefit.
Conclusion
In today’s multipolar world, the importance of multilateralism cannot be argued. Be it to restore global health systems, advance international free trade, pursue global climate action, or oversee universal human rights, multilateral engagements are necessary. However, the withdrawal of superpowers from global institutions undermines this cause. While the US’s “Big Brother” image takes a hit by stepping away from global platforms, hard power politics of economic growth are often prioritized over soft power benefits of geopolitical influence.
Meanwhile, the leadership vacuum left by the US gives space for other countries to step up. Whether countering that possibility would be in the immediate or long-term interest of the US is yet to be seen if and when Trump changes his mind. However, it is definitely in the interest of multilateralism to prevent a breakdown of global institutionalism, thus, a good place to begin would be by speeding up the process of reforms.
Bishwarupa Kar is a post-graduate student at the Department of Politics and International Studies at Pondicherry University. Her areas of interest include Climate Change, Climate Action and Climate Financing, Global South, Terrorism, and Polar Studies. Views expressed are the author’s own.
Piyush Anand 
Aayush Pal 
Balaji Subramanian