Trump and International Institutions
Trump and International Institutions
Since the end of World War II, the United States has sought to establish an international order that aligns with its own vision. In this pursuit, it led the creation of international organizations and institutions. In the security realm, NATO; in the economic sphere, 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, one would expect the United States to be more committed and loyal to the organizations and institutions it pioneered than any other country.
In general, after the collapse of the bipolar system, two viewpoints have been discussed in American power circles. One viewpoint believes that for the U.S. to remain the superior international power, it does not need to be overly committed to international obligations and regulations.
This viewpoint asserts that if the United States entangles itself with international rules and regulations and spends excessively to maintain international organizations and institutions, it will, firstly, incur significant costs and fall behind its competitors. Secondly, in a situation where the U.S. bears substantial costs while its competitors do not, this will not benefit 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 high costs incurred by the U.S. for the organization’s budget compared to the minimal contribution by China, which is currently the strongest competitor of the United States.
Thus, this viewpoint believes that international organizations and institutions should be followed only to the extent that they do not limit or hinder the superiority and power increase of the U.S. Republicans have always held such a view, believing that if the U.S. can remain the superior international power, it can then preserve international organizations and institutions.
The second viewpoint 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 implies that the U.S. will not bear all the costs for the organization’s missions, and other countries will also participate.
According to this viewpoint, adherence to international organizations legitimizes and validates the power of the United States, and others will respect this country’s power, thereby legitimizing U.S. policies.
This viewpoint, supported by the Democratic Party, believes that although the United States initially faces some limitations in adhering to international organizations, ultimately this adherence significantly aids in enhancing the superiority and maintaining the leadership of the United States globally and within the international system.
Although Donald Trump is the 47th President of the United States from the Republican Party and is skeptical of international organizations and institutions, viewing them as a cause of the decline of U.S. power, he holds an even more radical view than the Republicans. For instance, during George W. Bush’s administration, the U.S. withdrew from some arms agreements with Russia or had reservations about the Kyoto Protocol, but did not attempt to undermine the NATO treaty. Hence, Trump’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, revising traditional alliances, and opposing multilateralism.
Trump’s foreign policy cannot be separated from the economic interests of the United States. From this perspective, if the U.S. does not gain significant benefits from international cooperation, there is no reason to continue with the mentioned organizations. As a result of this approach, the U.S.’s commitment to traditional alliances and multilateral institutions is questioned, leading to severe tensions and reduced unity between the U.S. and its former partners, as European allies are currently 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 foreign policy of the new U.S. administration, like Trump’s first administration, has shifted from liberal multilateralism to unilateral realism. This shift causes past criteria in the U.S.’s view of international politics to change, reducing the importance of U.S. allies in the country’s 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, authority that should be exclusive to domestic political institutions. Even if these treaties offer considerable benefits to all parties, this view is based on the incorrect assumption that international law opposes state sovereignty, while it is quite the opposite, as international law aims to protect the collective interests of states through cooperation.
The decision of the 47th President of the United States to withdraw the country from international institutions and organizations 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 by making 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 he does not hesitate to express this view. In summary, it can be said that in the perspective of both main American parties, maintaining the leadership and position of the U.S. globally is very important. However, one viewpoint believes that organizations and institutions prevent 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 leads to reduced U.S. costs, while Republicans believe that multilateralism is acceptable wherever possible, and where it is not, the U.S. will act alone. Donald Rumsfeld’s famous saying, Secretary of Defense in the Gerald Ford and George W. Bush administrations, is noteworthy in this regard: ‘Unilateralism wherever necessary, multilateralism wherever possible.’ However, Donald Trump has acted more radically and practically views multilateralism as being subordinate to U.S. unilateralism. Traditional U.S. allies must also accept his interpretation for multilateralism to have meaning; from his perspective, in fact, unilateralism is what has meaning and significance.