LSE's Heinkelmann-Wild: Europe must prepare for US withdrawal from multilateralism – under Trump or Harris

29 October 2024

..withdrawal from multilateral institutions predates Trump and might well continue under a Kamala Harris presidency. European leaders should therefore act now to build a more resilient multilateralism without the US.

As the 2024 US presidential election approaches, Europe faces renewed uncertainty about its relationship with the United States. Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House has triggered concerns about transatlantic ties and multilateralism.

His “America First” policy is generally regarded as exceptional, erratic and apocalyptical for the international order. By contrast, Kamala Harris is associated with hopes for normality in the transatlantic partnership and a commitment to a rules-based international order.

At first glance, the two candidates could not be more different. However, treating Trump as an anomaly risks missing deeper, longer-term trends in US foreign policy – trends that Europeans must now prepare for, regardless of the election outcome. To safeguard the rules-based international order that has immensely benefited them, Europeans must draw the right lessons from the past and stop considering Trump’s policies as a mere aberration.

US withdrawal from multilateral institutions is not a Trump phenomenon

The Trump Administration terminated support for or membership of numerous international organisations and agreements. Examples include the Paris Agreement on climate change, the “Iran deal”, the UN Human Rights Council, the World Trade Organization and even the World Health Organization during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yet while the US withdrawal from multilateral institutions during the Trump Administration was unprecedented in terms of the number and relevance of the abandoned institutions, it should not be overlooked that the US has a long history of ambivalence towards multilateralism.

The US previously terminated its membership of other multilateral institutions, including the International Labour Organisation (ILO) under Jimmy Carter, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) under Ronald Reagan, and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) under Bill Clinton. Moreover, George W. Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Indeed, there are at least three reasons to believe US ambivalence towards multilateralism will persist. First, there have never been so many and so intrusive international institutions, which limit the room for manoeuvre of even the US and thus become targets of contestation. Second, domestic political polarisation in the US is also increasing over international politics, which makes foreign policy decisions in Congress more difficult. Finally, the US is declining relative to rising powers, such as China, and is confronted with increasingly influential blocs of revisionist and illiberal states, such as Russia.

Joe Biden was also subject to these internal and external forces and only selectively followed through on his promise that “America is back” following his election victory. Under Biden, the US has indeed resumed support for some multilateral institutions. Examples include the Paris Agreement, UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization. However, Biden never returned to other institutions, such as the “Iran deal”, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), or the Open Skies Treaty....

 more at LSE


© LSE