Context

• Despite criticisms regarding its effectiveness and bureaucratic inefficiencies, the UN remains the most significant global organisation dedicated to multilateral diplomacy.
• However, the introduction of the Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act by U.S. Senator Mike Lee threatens to undermine the UN’s legitimacy and functionality by proposing a complete U.S. withdrawal.
• Such a move would have far-reaching consequences, not only for the UN but also for global governance as a whole.

The Threat to the United Nations

• Legal and Institutional Implications of the DEFUND Act
  • If passed, the DEFUND Act would sever the U.S.'s relationship with the UN by repealing fundamental legislation, including the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 1947.
  • These laws are crucial because they legally formalise U.S. participation in the UN and establish its obligations, including financial contributions and diplomatic support.
  • Their repeal would mean the U.S. would no longer be bound by its commitments to the UN, effectively nullifying its role within the organization.
  • Furthermore, the DEFUND Act seeks to halt all financial contributions to the UN.
  • The U.S. is historically the largest contributor to the UN’s budget, providing approximately 22% of the UN’s core funding and 28% of the peacekeeping budget.
  • Cutting this funding would significantly impact UN programs related to peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, development, and health initiatives.
  • U.S. withdrawal could lead to funding shortages, weakening the UN’s ability to respond to global crises.
• Diplomatic and Geopolitical Consequences
  • Beyond financial concerns, the DEFUND Act would have profound diplomatic and geopolitical implications.
  • The U.S. has historically played a leading role in shaping UN policies, influencing major international decisions, and using its permanent seat on the UN Security Council (UNSC) to assert its foreign policy interests.
  • A withdrawal would mean relinquishing this influence, creating a power vacuum that could be filled by rival nations, particularly China and Russia.
  • These countries have already been expanding their influence within UN agencies, and a diminished U.S. presence could further tilt the balance of power in their favour.
  • Additionally, withdrawing from the UN could isolate the U.S. diplomatically.
  • While other global powers continue to engage in multilateral discussions on issues such as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and human rights, the U.S. would be left without a seat at the table.
  • This could weaken its ability to negotiate international agreements and influence global policies, ultimately reducing its strategic leverage on the world stage.
• Impact on UN Operations and Peacekeeping Missions
  • One of the most critical areas that would suffer from a U.S. withdrawal is UN peacekeeping operations.
  • The U.S. has been a key supporter of peacekeeping missions, providing funding, logistical support, and personnel training.
  • If the DEFUND Act passes, it would prohibit U.S. participation in these operations, leading to operational difficulties for UN missions in conflict zones such as South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Mali.

The Shift Towards Economic Nationalism and the Consequence of Unilateralism

• The Shift Towards Economic Nationalism
  • The Trump administration’s economic policies also reflected a departure from multilateralism.
  • The implementation of aggressive tariffs under the guise of national security drew parallels to the protectionist policies of the 1930s, particularly the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
  • That historical period saw a rise in trade barriers, contributing to economic instability and the onset of World War II.
  • In contrast, the post-war global economy was built on the principles of free trade, culminating in the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, which later evolved into the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
  • However, the U.S. under Trump actively undermined the WTO by blocking appointments to its Appellate Body, which resolves trade disputes.
  • This obstructionism has pushed the WTO into a state of crisis, jeopardizing the global trade system that has ensured economic stability for decades.
• The Consequences of Unilateralism
  • The broader implications of these actions are clear: the erosion of multilateral institutions threatens global governance, economic stability, and international law.
  • The Trump administration’s rejection of international cooperation in areas such as climate change, public health, and human rights has created a leadership vacuum.
  • The weakening of institutions like the UN, ICC, and WTO undermines collective efforts to address pressing global challenges, making it more difficult to coordinate responses to crises such as pandemics and climate change.
  • Furthermore, the U.S.’s retreat from multilateralism has sparked concerns about retaliation from other nations.
  • The idea of "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) is fundamentally at odds with the reality that global leadership requires cooperation, not isolation.
  • Without strong international alliances, the U.S. risks diminishing its influence and facing economic repercussions.

A New Opportunity for Global Leadership

• Amidst the U.S.'s retreat, non-Western nations, particularly India, have an opportunity to assume a greater role in global governance.
• India has consistently advocated for multilateralism and adherence to international law.
• During the G-20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in February 2025, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar reaffirmed the importance of an inclusive approach to global challenges, emphasising the need for peaceful resolutions and international cooperation.
• Additionally, the current geopolitical climate presents an opportunity for India to push for long-overdue reforms in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
• As a rising global power, India has been advocating for a more representative and democratic UNSC structure.
• With the U.S. withdrawing from its leadership role, emerging economies like India can step up to shape the future of global governance.

Conclusion

• The ‘America First’ approach, characterized by economic nationalism and political isolationism, has significantly weakened the multilateral institutions that uphold international law and global stability.
• The potential withdrawal from the UN, sanctions on the ICC, and obstruction of the WTO signal a shift towards unilateralism that threatens the global order.
• While these actions may temporarily serve U.S. nationalist interests, they ultimately undermine long-term global cooperation and stability.