Today's Edition
By: OBAID FAISAL ALKAABI
The international organisations and their role in today’s world have become a subject of debate, not only in the Global South but also in the western corridors of power.
Over the past decade, some western countries have taken the lead in criticising international organisations and blocs with some even opting to withdraw from them, claiming that these bodies no longer serve their interests or align with their policies, with the United States at the forefront during the first and second administrations of President Donald Trump.
Among the most recent US decisions in this regard was its withdrawal from UNESCO; it has already left the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Agreement, and the Human Rights Council. Trump’s return to the White House has renewed this trend, as his administration once again reviews America’s membership in various United Nations-affiliated bodies. Official justifications for these decisions often centre around claims of bias, lack of independence, poor crisis management, and failure to achieve US interests. The United States contributes significantly more funding to these organisations than many other, more populous countries. The change has gone to the point that a Republican senator introduced a bill in the Senate urging the US to quit the United Nations.
These moves significantly weakened the activity of some organisations and perhaps paralysed others, whether due to funding cuts or by banning their operations in certain regions.
Aside from official reasons, Trump is not convinced by the post-World War II global order, which was established by the US and led to the creation of international political and economic institutions, chief among them the United Nations and its agencies.
While the multiple US withdrawals from international organisations and treaties may diminish its global role to some extent, Washington views this as a principled rejection of multilateral mechanisms, even as international law is largely dependent on such organisations.
Under Trump, the United States adopts a transactional attitude towards global engagement. As such, membership in international organisations is evaluated through a cost-benefit lens, especially in terms of economic returns.
While cutting costs may be one factor, the more decisive motive remains the “America First” policy. Accordingly, Washington places little value on organisations that do not align with its inward-focused policies and its preference for domestic over international affairs.
However, before Trump came to power, there was another example from the western part of the world. In 2016, the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union for reasons connected to immigration, economics, and sovereignty.
This marked a return of protectionist measures to the global economic scene, culminating in today’s widespread tariff hikes, although many believed such practices had been dismantled in the post-World War II era.
Although transformations take time, there seems to be a shift toward alternative mechanisms that may marginalise international organisations, especially if this western vision is not merely a passing phase tied to certain political figures. Yet, we must also acknowledge the shortcomings of international organisations in the face of global conflicts.
Some international organisations’ handling of wars and crises has often exposed institutional bias, either embedded within their structures or forced upon them by dominant global powers seeking to legitimise their geopolitical agendas.
The end of World War II ushered in a new era of global governance, where sovereign equality among nations would be enshrined through the United Nations. But it seems that the current US administration wants to reshape the world in a way that advances its own interests and reinforces its dominance and values.
It seeks to rewrite the rules on global issues like trade, cyberspace, and emerging technologies. Meanwhile, many countries in the Global South remain disillusioned by the current global system that has yet to fulfill their aspirations. They now call for a multi-polar world order that respects sovereignty and ensures economic and social justice.
Amid these diverging global visions, international organisations find themselves at a critical juncture: Will they remain entrenched in the current world order, or will they evolve to become foundational institutions in the coming era as well?
The columnist is a staffer at the think-tank firm TRENDS Research & Advisory
