Understanding the dire state of the international rules-based order does not require the keen insight of a Kissinger or an Acheson. The upcoming second term of Donald Trump poses a significant challenge to the framework of global politics and diplomacy, which may not withstand the pressure. Trump has already put forth some audacious ideas, such as suggesting that Canada should become the 51st state, asserting ownership of the Panama Canal, and claiming that control of Greenland is crucial for U.S. national security. These notions reflect an antiquated approach to territorial claims and sovereignty that was supposed to have ended after World War II and the establishment of the U.N. Charter.
During the Cold War, global relations were influenced by the competition between the East and West, yet there was a recognition of international institutions like the U.N., the International Court of Justice, and the World Bank. These bodies, along with agreements like the Bretton Woods accords, aimed to promote multilateralism and replicate the governance structures of democratic nation-states. However, recent events such as Russia’s actions in Ukraine and China’s assertiveness have challenged this rules-based order.
The U.N., despite its flaws, remains the best mechanism we have for addressing global issues. While it may be founded on the premise of equal moral weight for all nations, the organization symbolizes an effort to regulate state interactions and uphold the principle that “might is not always right.” The Trump administration’s skepticism towards multilateralism and its intention to reduce funding to the U.N. indicate a departure from this ethos. As the new term approaches, there is concern that this approach could further weaken the international order and undermine efforts to maintain peace and cooperation on a global scale.
Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, along with investor and hedge fund manager Scott Bessett, expressed his views in November about an impending global policy realignment akin to the historical Bretton Woods agreement. Bessett indicated his interest in being involved in this shift, which could potentially impact institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Notably, the United States holds significant influence in these organizations, being the largest shareholder in the World Bank and the biggest contributor to the IMF. However, President Trump’s emphasis on tariffs deviates from the principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO), creating a divergence in policy.
The prospect of Trump disrupting the established rules-based order, similar to a biblical scene of Jesus overturning the tables of moneychangers in the Temple, excites his supporters who embrace his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) ethos. Critics argue that certain international institutions have deviated from their original purpose, with the United Nations facing accusations of ineffectiveness, the International Court of Justice being criticized for political bias, and the IMF being accused of prioritizing politics over economic considerations.
If the U.S. were to disregard these institutions, it could temporarily maintain its dominant global position due to its status as the largest economy, surpassing major competitors such as China, Japan, and Germany combined. Additionally, the U.S. outspends the next four nations in defense expenditures. In a scenario where might determines right, the U.S. stands as the most powerful player on the world stage.
Nevertheless, this supremacy is not guaranteed indefinitely. Should the American economy weaken or face greater challenges to its military superiority, Trump’s actions may inadvertently leave the nation vulnerable in a world lacking established rules and protections. Drawing on the cautionary tale of “Jim” from Hilaire Belloc’s poem, where a boy meets a tragic end after straying from his nurse’s care, it serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining stability and order.
Eliot Wilson, a commentator on political and international affairs, underscores the potential consequences of Trump’s disruptive approach. Wilson’s background as a former senior official in the U.K. House of Commons lends weight to his analysis, particularly his insights on the implications for global governance and security. As the world navigates shifting dynamics and challenges to established norms, the need for strategic foresight and prudent decision-making becomes increasingly paramount.
In conclusion, the ongoing geopolitical landscape demands thoughtful consideration of the implications of policy decisions and their broader ramifications. As various actors, including the United States under President Trump, navigate complex international relations, the importance of upholding principles of cooperation and stability remains crucial in safeguarding global interests and promoting sustainable development.
