Trump and International Organizations
Trump and International Organizations
Since World War II, the United States has sought to shape the international order according to its own vision. In this context, it took the lead in establishing international organizations and institutions. In the security arena, NATO; in the economic arena, institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization are among these organizations, and this trend has continued to this day.
For this reason, at first glance, it is expected that the United States would be more committed and loyal to the organizations and institutions it helped to create than any other country.
In general, after the collapse of the bipolar system, two perspectives have emerged in American power circles on this issue. One perspective believes that for the U.S. to remain the superior international power, it does not necessarily have to adhere strictly to international commitments and regulations.
This view holds that if the United States entangles itself too much in international rules and regulations and spends excessively to maintain international organizations and institutions, it will, first of all, incur high costs and fall behind its competitors. Secondly, in a situation where the U.S. pays a lot and its competitors do not, this situation will not be beneficial for the U.S. in the medium and long term. Donald Trump, when signing the executive order to withdraw from the World Health Organization, pointed out the exorbitant costs paid by the U.S. for the organization’s budget compared to the minimal costs paid by China, which is currently the strongest competitor to the United States.
Therefore, this view believes that international organizations and institutions should be followed only to the extent that they do not limit the superiority and power of the United States. Republicans have always held such a view, believing that if America can remain the superior international power, it can then maintain international organizations and institutions.
The second view believes that the U.S. can maintain its superiority by incurring fewer costs, and this is achieved by adhering to international organizations and institutions. This means that when the U.S. joins an organization, it does not mean that it will bear all the costs for that organization’s missions; other governments will also participate.
According to this view, adherence to international organizations enhances the legitimacy and acceptance of U.S. power, and others will respect this country’s power, legitimizing U.S. policies.
This view, supported by the Democratic Party, believes that although the United States initially faces some limitations in adhering to international organizations, this adherence ultimately significantly helps to enhance and maintain U.S. leadership on a global scale and within the international system.
Although Donald Trump, the 47th President of the United States, is from the Republican Party and is skeptical of international organizations and institutions, viewing them as detrimental to U.S. power, he holds an even more radical view than other Republicans. For instance, under George W. Bush, the U.S. withdrew from some arms agreements with Russia or had reservations about the Kyoto Protocol, but did not attempt to weaken NATO. Thus, the Trump administration’s view of international organizations is very skeptical and extreme.
In Trump’s second administration, the focus of U.S. foreign policy towards international institutions remains the same as in his first administration. This policy is primarily based on three notions: economic interests, re-evaluating traditional alliances, and opposing multilateralism.
Trump’s foreign policy cannot be separated from the economic interests of the United States. From this perspective, if America does not gain significant benefits from international cooperation, there is no reason to continue with such organizations. As a result, this approach has cast doubt on America’s commitment to traditional alliances and multilateral institutions, leading to severe tensions and a reduction in unity between the U.S. and its former partners. Currently, European allies are most concerned about European security, the rise of far-right movements across the continent, the transatlantic trade war, and the weakening of multilateralism.
In fact, the new U.S. administration’s foreign policy, like Trump’s first administration, has shifted from liberal multilateralism to unilateral realism. This change alters the previous criteria in America’s approach to international politics and diminishes the role of U.S. allies in its security and economic convergence portfolio.
In reality, the new U.S. administration’s view of international law is a form of new sovereigntism, which grants significant authority to countries and international organizations through treaties. This authority should be exclusive to domestic political institutions, even if these treaties offer substantial benefits to all parties. This perspective is based on the incorrect assumption that international law opposes state sovereignty, whereas it actually seeks to protect the collective interests of states through cooperation.
The decision by the 47th President of the United States to withdraw the country from international organizations and institutions has raised serious concerns, even among its allies. This action by Donald Trump is a severe blow to a system that has been created and maintained by all presidents before him since Harry Truman.
Donald Trump has gone further and made claims against the territorial integrity of other countries, which are entirely contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law. In fact, he does not believe in international institutions, rules, and norms and is not afraid to state this. In summary, it can be said that in the view of both major American parties, maintaining U.S. leadership and position on a global scale is very important. However, one view believes that organizations and institutions hinder this, while the other believes that adherence to international organizations and institutions legitimizes U.S. decisions and strengthens the country’s position in the international system.
Democrats believe that multilateralism reduces U.S. costs, while Republicans believe that multilateralism is acceptable wherever possible, and wherever it is not, the U.S. acts alone. The famous phrase by Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense under Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, is noteworthy in this context: ‘Unilateralism wherever necessary, multilateralism wherever possible.’ However, Donald Trump has acted more radically and essentially views multilateralism as subordinate to U.S. unilateralism. Traditional U.S. allies must accept his interpretation for multilateralism to have meaning. From his perspective, unilateralism is what truly matters.
