U.S. withdraws from international organizations. What it means

During the first month after taking office as US President, Donald Trump made several high-profile announcements and significant steps. Among them are the country's withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Human Rights Council and the Middle East Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). These and other international organizations are important platforms for countries to hear each other, and in many ways they are the basis for international law. The Izvestia analyzes what goal the new head of the White House is pursuing by leaving them one by one.

A pledge of stability

- The foundations of the modern world order were laid during the Yalta Conference of February 4-11, 1945 and became the most important outcome of the Second World War. The United Nations Organization was established as a pledge of stability and prosperity of all countries on the terms of their sovereign equality. All countries were declared equal to each other. A so-called system of checks and balances was established to limit the attempts of individual nations to dominate others. This system worked successfully for half a century.

- After the end of the Cold War and perestroika in the Soviet Union, the United States began to attempt to dominate the world stage. NATO's non-expansion pledges to Russia were openly ignored, and Moscow's requested guarantees of international security at the end of 2021 were also not given. In 30 years, all this has led to the need for a special military operation in Ukraine, sanctions, economic crisis in many countries, and a decline in prosperity in Western countries.

- At the same time, the U.S. systematically undermined the main principle of the UN Charter - the sovereign equality of states. Over the past 15 years, this has compromised several international organizations. For example, the UN, whose secretariat, contrary to the Charter, has taken a biased position on the conflict in Ukraine and is encouraging countries to further escalate it, or WADA and OPCW, which made their decisions "at the behest" of Washington under the threat of cutting off their funding.

- Thus, this eventually boomeranged on WADA: the first attempt to go against the U.S. position led to a freeze in funding, a breakdown in trust and a deep internal crisis. The OPCW, for its part, became famous for issuing biased resolutions based on provocations by the non-profit organization White Helmets, which simulated the use of chemical weapons in Syria during the civil war.

Global reasons for withdrawal

- The last several White House administrations have often appealed to a "rules-based world order" in international relations . The term emerged in the early 1990s but has long been overshadowed by the concept of a "liberal world order." The globalization of trade, the emergence of the WTO, which incorporates the principle of "rules-based trade", led to the emergence and spread of the new term. The Western expert community notes that the "rules-based order" has been prevalent in the speeches of American politicians since about 2014, replacing the "liberal world order".

- Today, Western strategists almost openly admit that the "rules-based order" no longer exists - a leading democratic publication such as Foreign Affairs writes about it almost directly. And Donald Trump, through his actions and statements, is demonstrating his commitment to a new principle - the right of the strong, which Russia has compared to "cowboy rides".

On its own terms: the US has declared war on the UN and its institutions

Donald Trump has ordered the departure of WHO, the Human Rights Council and UNRWA, with UNESCO next in line

- The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, WHO, the UN Human Rights Council, UNRWA - all these are signals that the principle of sovereign equality in international relations approved in 1945, the principle that implies the need to negotiate and take into account the interests of other countries, is irrelevant for the US, and Donald Trump is not shy to declare it.

Pragmatic reasons for withdrawal

- Reason one is to cut off the unnecessary. Few in the expert community over the past month have not come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is first and foremost a businessman and economist, and his approach to politics is corresponding. Among other things, his approach to geopolitics follows from here: in business, he who is stronger wins, there are no equals there. According to popular belief, the president is now conducting an "audit" and looking at how economically beneficial it is for the U.S. to participate in certain organizations where strategic or financial goals outweigh the costs. The fact is that Washington pays significant contributions to organizations, and it is indicative that, deprived of U.S. payments, many of them instantly found themselves in a state of crisis (we discussed in detail how this was reflected in the example of the anti-doping agency WADA here). In short, it is a matter of cost savings.

- The second reason is concentration on priority areas. It is also connected with the insistence on stopping the conflict in Ukraine, and the main thing for Trump is to stop the fire, and how the contradictions that led to the start of the CFE will be resolved is another matter. The leaked plan of the special envoy for Ukraine Keith Kellogg (which was hardly accidental) and his statements themselves speak in favor of this. A cease-fire and a sluggish negotiation process will make it possible to "legally" stop providing multibillion-dollar aid to Kiev and direct these funds to fighting illegal migration and drug trafficking. And if, as in the so-called Kellogg Plan, NATO troops go to Ukraine on a peacekeeping mission (even better, if the European Union takes the Ukrainian problem under its responsibility), then it would be possible to withdraw part of the American contingent stationed at NATO bases in Europe with a clear conscience. The head of the White House has already mentioned that this would help strengthen the southern border of the United States.

- At the same time, Trump needs significant funds to fight the "deep state." Cutting "unnecessary" spending and focusing on priorities should help with that as well. The USAID shutdown was a powerful blow to Trump's adversary, and only then did the Democratic Party attempt to wake up from the shocked state it has been in for the last few months. For example, two Democratic senators said that as a response to the "lawlessness" they would block any attempt by Trump to confirm appointees to his staff. But this is just the beginning of the fight, and it's clear that Trump has no intention of solving foreign policy problems by leaving gaps at home.

What it means.

- Since the creation of the UN at the Yalta Conference on February 4-11, 1945, the US realized that this format did not quite match its ambitions and throughout the years since then, it has made attempts to "circumvent the system." At the same time, they have developed other concepts, be it globalism, rules-based order, or Trump's vision of America First.

- This principle forces a review of the country's participation in international organizations and leaves only those that are economically and politically beneficial to the US. This is exactly the kind of "audit" the White House chief is now engaged in: he is leaving all platforms where, in his opinion, Washington is more subject to rules than benefits. Not the least of these benefits is of a financial nature. Having gained significant electoral credibility, Trump must channel additional financial flows into the US and quickly justify his mandate. This will free his hands for less popular actions in the future, such as turning Gaza into a development project or encroaching on Greenland's resources.

Izvestia communicated with and took into account the opinions of:

• Andrei Koshkin, head of the Department of Political Analysis and Social and Psychological Processes at Plekhanov Russian Economic University;
• American political scientist Konstantin Blokhin;
• American political scientist Dmitry Drobnitsky.