U.S. to exit 66 international organisations as Trump further retreats from global cooperation

The decision by the U.S. under the Trump administration to exit 66 international organizations, predominantly UN-related agencies focusing on climate, labor, and diversity, marked a significant pivot in global geopolitics. This move, driven by an "America First" ideology, represented a profound retreat from multilateralism and a challenge to the established international order that the U.S. itself largely helped construct post-World War II.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

After World War II, the United States was instrumental in establishing a rules-based international order, founding institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. This framework was built on the premise of collective security, economic cooperation, and shared values, with the U.S. often acting as the primary patron and leader. However, a growing sentiment in some U.S. political circles, particularly under the Trump administration (2017-2021), viewed these international commitments as burdensome, financially draining, or antithetical to national interests. The administration's foreign policy was characterized by a skepticism towards global governance, a preference for bilateral deals over multilateral agreements, and a sharp critique of institutions perceived as infringing on national sovereignty or promoting what it termed "woke" or "diversity" agendas. The withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change in 2017, the UN Human Rights Council in 2018, and the World Health Organization in 2020 were high-profile examples of this trend, culminating in the broader announcement of exiting 66 organizations, many of which were advisory panels or commissions related to UN bodies dealing with environmental protection, labor standards, and social justice.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **The U.S. (Trump Administration):** The primary driver, motivated by an "America First" doctrine, a desire to reduce financial contributions, and an ideological opposition to certain global norms and initiatives, particularly those related to climate action and social equality. This perspective often viewed international bodies as inefficient or hostile to U.S. interests.

2. **United Nations and its Agencies:** As the primary target, these organizations faced a significant blow to their funding, legitimacy, and operational capacity. The UN system relies heavily on member state contributions and political will to address global challenges.

3. **Other Member States:** Nations committed to multilateralism, such as those in the European Union, Canada, Japan, and importantly, India, found themselves navigating a more unpredictable international landscape. These countries often had to step up efforts to compensate for the U.S. withdrawal, both financially and diplomatically, to keep critical international initiatives afloat.

4. **Global Civil Society and NGOs:** Organizations advocating for climate action, human rights, labor protections, and sustainable development were directly impacted. Their work often aligns with the mandates of the targeted international bodies, and U.S. disengagement weakened the global framework supporting their advocacy.

**Why This Matters for India:**

India, a staunch advocate for a rules-based international order and multilateralism, is significantly impacted by such shifts in U.S. foreign policy. India's foreign policy, guided by principles enshrined in **Article 51 of the Constitution** (which directs the State to promote international peace and security, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration), has historically championed cooperation through global institutions. The U.S. retreat creates several challenges and opportunities for India:

* **Geopolitical Impact:** A weakening of multilateral institutions creates a vacuum, potentially leading to increased geopolitical instability and a less predictable global environment. India, aspiring to be a leading global power, finds its efforts to strengthen global governance challenged. It may need to assume a more prominent role in multilateral forums, collaborating with like-minded countries to uphold global norms.

* **Economic Impact:** Disruption to international climate agreements, labor standards, and trade norms can indirectly affect India's economic interests. For instance, weakened climate action impacts India, which is highly vulnerable to climate change. Instability in global trade or financial regulations could also pose risks to India's economic growth and integration into the global economy.

* **Social and Environmental Impact:** Issues like climate change, pandemics, and human rights are inherently global. U.S. disengagement weakens collective action on these fronts, directly impacting India's efforts to achieve its Sustainable Development Goals and protect its vulnerable populations from environmental degradation or exploitative labor practices.

* **Strategic Autonomy:** In a less predictable world, India's commitment to strategic autonomy becomes even more critical. It must carefully balance its relationships with major powers while continuing to champion multilateralism and a multi-polar world order.

**Historical Context and Future Implications:**

Historically, the U.S. has occasionally disengaged from international bodies (e.g., its initial refusal to join the League of Nations, or withdrawal from UNESCO under Reagan). However, the scale and ideological motivation behind the Trump administration's withdrawals were unprecedented. The immediate future saw a partial reversal of this trend under the Biden administration, which rejoined the Paris Agreement and the WHO, signaling a renewed commitment to multilateralism. However, the episode highlighted the fragility of international cooperation and the potential for a single nation's policy shift to profoundly impact global governance. For India, the implications include the need for enhanced diplomatic efforts, potentially forging new alliances and coalitions to ensure the continued relevance and effectiveness of international institutions, and preparing for a world where global cooperation may be more transactional and less predictable.

This event underscores the dynamic nature of international relations and the ongoing tension between national sovereignty and global interdependence, a critical theme for India as it navigates its role on the world stage.