Over the past few years, we have seen former President Donald Trump unapologetically disrupt the status quo of international diplomacy. Indeed, he’s already upended the balance of power in NATO and the UN Security Council. His approach, rooted in a doctrine of American isolationism, poses serious questions as to the future of these global institutions. Trump has indicated he would withdraw support for NATO. Many experts have warned that his move to bypass the Security Council in favor of unilateral military action may endanger international stability.
Trump’s administration has often signaled a willingness to reconsider commitments to NATO, particularly regarding Article 5, which stipulates that an attack on one member nation is viewed as an attack on all. Yet throughout his presidency, he suggested he was only half-serious about this bedrock idea. Such was the fear this disclosure inspired in his supporters.
“There are numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right? But I’m committed to being their friends,” – Donald Trump
This lasting uncertainty has been the source of great concern for the Alliance of NATO member states. They trust the collective defense promise to deter aggression. An undermined NATO would spell disaster for both Europe and the world. It would upend the security arrangements that have prevailed since World War II.
Bypassing the Security Council
Perhaps the most important part of Trump’s foreign policy has been his unwillingness to defer to the United Nations Security Council. The U.S. went to war with Iran without authorization from the council. This equally bold move brought shocking attention to a new trend—an unprecedented and alarming tilt toward unilateralism in American foreign policy. This move is a significant and obvious break from diplomatic norms. It is released just days after the Administration vetoed a Security Council resolution which would have called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
In the past, the U.S. has worked with Russia to develop these resolutions. These resolutions fail to deliver critical Congressional oversight or condemn Russia’s hostilities in Ukraine. Such actions have fueled longstanding worries about the Security Council’s capacity and credibility to address serious crises across the globe.
“The most powerful country in the world has acted without regard to the laws and processes, and got away with it,” – Chris Michaelsen
Despite these challenges, some experts believe that the United Nations Security Council continues to play a vital role in maintaining global peace. University of Melbourne Professor John Langmore argues that the council is in trouble. It has done a pretty effective job keeping a third world war at bay since its founding.
“It’s been highly effective because there hasn’t been a World War III,” – Professor John Langmore
The Effectiveness of Global Institutions
Despite its many failings, through its 80-year history, the United Nations has done a remarkable job at lowering the occurrence of interstate wars. The five permanent members of the Security Council—the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, and China—hold veto power over any resolution, which can hinder decisive action during crises.
Despite recent disappointments, advocates and experts such as University of New South Wales Prof. Chris Michaelsen insist that the council still works. He points out that the global environment is increasingly tense and conflicted, as seen in Ukraine and Gaza. The council is still alive and kicking and doing real damage.
“The world is a more peaceful place,” – Chris Michaelsen
Michaelsen cautions against complacency. He acknowledges that these veto-holding countries often prevent the council from acting as envisioned by the UN charter during significant crises.
Future Implications for International Relations
With Trump’s deep fingerprints still all over American foreign policy discussions, many international relations experts worry about the corrosive long-term impact on the foundations of international institutions. If a similar administration were to retake power, the council’s authority and effectiveness could be permanently damaged.
“If it’s another MAGA administration, then I think it can potentially have a lasting damaging effect on the council—because we are essentially looking at 10 years of US disengagement,” – Professor John Langmore
The impact of these changes in policy stretches far beyond short term geopolitical issues. They go against all the basic tenets of multilateralism that have shaped great power relations since the end of the Second World War.
