With multilateral frameworks under attack, a new system in which country groupings – based on, say, geography or worldview – would formulate their own sets of rules may seem like a viable alternative. But the trend toward increasingly close economic and even social interdependence demands global rules and standards.
WASHINGTON, DC – Amid ongoing attacks by US President Donald Trump, the battle for the future of multilateralism has commenced. Previous demands for pragmatic reforms have escalated into pressure for the wholesale transformation – or even total destruction – of the global framework of multilateral institutions. Trump seems to prefer a “system” in which bilateral deals replace the multilateral rules-based order. As the US is still the world’s most advanced (and one of the largest in terms of market prices) economy in the world, he believes America can get the best “deal” by negotiating alone, unbound by international rules – a view that extends to military affairs.
WASHINGTON, DC – Amid ongoing attacks by US President Donald Trump, the battle for the future of multilateralism has commenced. Previous demands for pragmatic reforms have escalated into pressure for the wholesale transformation – or even total destruction – of the global framework of multilateral institutions. Trump seems to prefer a “system” in which bilateral deals replace the multilateral rules-based order. As the US is still the world’s most advanced (and one of the largest in terms of market prices) economy in the world, he believes America can get the best “deal” by negotiating alone, unbound by international rules – a view that extends to military affairs.