By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration is set to withdraw from a number of international organizations, including the U.N.’s population agency and the U.N. treaty for climate negotiations. This move follows a review of U.S. participation and funding for international organizations, with many of the targeted entities focusing on climate, labor, and migration. The administration views these institutions as “redundant” and detrimental to U.S. interests. This decision continues a pattern of the U.S. exiting global agencies and shifting its approach to multilateralism, prioritizing cooperation on its own terms.
Read the original article here
US will exit dozens of international organizations as it further retreats from global cooperation. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the United States is poised to dramatically reduce its involvement in global affairs. We’re talking about a significant shift, a retreat from the international stage that involves pulling out of numerous international organizations. The motivations behind this are complex, but the impact will be far-reaching, fundamentally altering the way the US interacts with the world and how the world, in turn, views the US.
This isn’t just about a few symbolic withdrawals; it’s a systematic dismantling of the structures that have defined US foreign policy for decades. The focus seems to be on organizations perceived as promoting “woke” agendas or simply not aligning with a particular vision of American interests. Agencies focusing on climate, labor, migration, and other issues are in the crosshairs, along with groups like the Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. The consequences are pretty huge. For instance, exiting the Human Rights Council sends a very clear message about priorities.
A key point to consider is how this retreat plays into the emerging dynamics of a new global order. As the US steps back, other nations, namely China and Russia, are likely to fill the void. This could mean a shift in economic and political influence, and a weakening of the post-World War II international system. The departure from international bodies also raises questions about the future of global cooperation on issues like climate change, trade, and security.
This is a stark departure from the US’s traditional role as a global leader. Historically, the US has championed international cooperation and has been a central figure in creating and sustaining the institutions that underpin it. This shift away from globalism toward regionalism, as some suggest, could reshape the global economy and power structures, leading to a world where interconnectedness is replaced by a more fragmented landscape.
What’s really concerning is the perception that this withdrawal is a deliberate strategy, potentially even a preparation for conflict. The rhetoric surrounding this decision is often inflammatory, talking about war and the destruction of the current global order. The shift toward focusing on “great power competition,” particularly with China, reinforces this impression. The US seems to be prioritizing a narrow view of its own interests at the expense of global partnerships, a dangerous game.
This brings up some very troubling questions. Could the withdrawal from these international bodies be a prelude to more aggressive actions? Some see the potential for the US to isolate itself, preparing for a future where it’s less reliant on international cooperation and more focused on asserting its power unilaterally. This could have disastrous implications for global stability, economic stability, and the overall well-being of the world.
Then there’s the economic angle. If the US Navy steps back from enforcing free trade, it could shatter the interconnected global economy. This shift has massive ramifications, making it harder to deal with shared global challenges, from pandemics to economic downturns. This trend could erode the value of the US dollar as a reserve currency, further isolating the US.
In this scenario, it is critical to keep in mind the potential impact on average people. A shift of this magnitude could usher in a period of chaos, conflict, and uncertainty. It’s a scary thought. This shift suggests a willingness to upend the existing order, with very uncertain consequences.
What’s particularly unnerving is the apparent lack of concern for the potential consequences. It’s as though some within the US are actively dismantling the mechanisms that have kept the peace and fostered prosperity for decades. It’s important to remember that this isolationist path isn’t just a political decision; it’s a potential betrayal of the values of international cooperation.
This is a time for introspection. Those of us living outside the US need to consider what our response should be. Do we double down on our existing alliances, or do we seek new partnerships? Do we allow the US to retreat without challenge, or do we attempt to hold them accountable? The world needs to understand that we might need to rely on each other more than on a withdrawing US. The future demands that we seek new paths forward, in a world where the old certainties are fast disappearing.