Breaks in international cooperation always have two sides: on the one hand, the legitimate right of a state to define its foreign policy based on domestic priorities; on the other, the shared responsibility that comes with recognizing that certain challenges transcend borders and can only be addressed together.
This tension is at the heart of the US decision to withdraw from organizations, conventions, and forums that it considers contrary to its national interests:
- 31 are linked to the United Nations
- 35 are non-UN organizations, including global forums on energy, migration, the environment, and international cooperation.
Multilateral organizations have evolved as instruments of dialogue, cooperation, and solidarity among countries with diverse interests. Although many criticisms regarding their efficiency, bureaucracy, or unclear agendas are real and deserve attention, it is also true that these spaces have been the scene of fundamental agreements: from the regulation of international trade to the response to pandemics; from the protection of the environment to the defense of human rights.
Abandoning these forums without a parallel initiative for multilateral reconstruction or reform could mean losing participation in decisions that shape the global economy and security.
Cooperation does not mean the absence of criticism. It often means accepting the discomfort of the process and committing to improving structures from within. The reflective challenge posed by this retreat is to ask ourselves: how can we renew global mechanisms so that they are efficient, transparent, and truly representative without losing the opportunity to contribute to collective solutions? Can unilateral distancing be a catalyst for new, more agile and effective forms of cooperation, or does it risk further fragmenting the international architecture?
Contemporary history shows us that problems that share borders—such as climate, pandemics, or economic security—require shared responses. Leaving the multilateral table without a solid alternative proposal can leave a void that is difficult to fill.
In this context, the key question is not only whether it was legitimate to withdraw, but how to build new or reformed bridges that can respond to the needs of the 21st century, because no country, however powerful, can face the challenges that the world shares alone.
