Donald Trump has already started his new world order. The executive orders he signed just hours after being sworn in as president of the United States, and his statements, made this clear. Goodbye to multilateralism: Washington will leave the Paris Agreement against climate change, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the pact that the United States negotiated within the framework of the OECD to tax large multinationals. A leading world power, more isolationist and determined to expand, arrives. But, although the brand new leader has defended these steps as beneficial for his country, the shot could backfire: by withdrawing from international institutions, he makes way for other rivals to occupy their space in them.
In the case of climate agreements, furthermore, the United States opens the door to damaging its clean energy sector, which moves nearly two trillion dollars annually (almost the same amount in euros) and where other countries can try to be more competitive.
Not that until now the United States had maintained an impeccable record of supporting multilateral institutions. He retired from UNESCO in 2017, the UN body that promotes education and culture, and is not a member of the International Criminal Court. What is new in Trump’s mandates is the breadth and arguments of his withdrawals; that add to the threats towards other institutions: NATO, its mission and the defense spending of different countries are in the sights of the new president. The Republican Administration also announces possible reevaluations of its contributions to UN organizations.
In all cases, Trump argues unfair treatment of Washington and, in some, also points to China—its alleged influence or its internal policies—as a cause. These are steps that were already anticipated. The Republican had announced them time and time again at his campaign rallies, to the delight of his audience. And he had already taken those steps against the Paris Agreement and the WHO in his first term. Then they seemed like a mere parenthesis: Joe Biden amended them during his presidency. Now its consequences are more complicated.
The executive order “Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements,” already signed by Trump, stipulates not only the withdrawal of the Paris Agreement, but also eliminates the United States International Climate Finance Plan, endowed with nearly 10 billion dollars annually (almost identical amount in euros). Trump has promised to increase domestic oil and gas production and eliminate subsidies for wind turbines and electric vehicles that his predecessor, Joe Biden, had implemented, as part of a series of measures to stimulate the clean energy sector and fight against climate change.
“The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity,” Trump declared when signing the decree in a pavilion full of his supporters, in a televised ceremony. China is the main emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. But also, a great investor in renewable energies and exporter of clean energy. It is the largest manufacturer of electric vehicles, and according to experts it is a decade ahead of the United States in the green energy sector.
On the Paris accords, “the decision underscores the volatility of US domestic policy on climate change, a factor that will inevitably undermine momentum.” [para la lucha contra el cambio] global climate” that was already facing difficulties, explains Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Center at the Asia Partnership Policy Institute (ASPI) in Washington. “As Europe and China face problems in their national climate efforts, Trump’s move now represents a tougher test than eight years ago. “Politics is going to have an increasingly limited role when it comes to taking action on the climate,” he points out in an email.
Although Trump does not consider it this way, the cost of clean technologies – wind, solar or those used for electric vehicles – has been falling drastically cheaper. The US is already the world’s leading oil and gas producer. “By denying the increasingly evident fact that economic competitiveness and climate action can go hand in hand, the United States risks falling further and further behind in the race for green technologies,” argues Li Shuo.
The UN executive secretary for climate change, Simon Stiell, also highlighted the economic benefits of the fight against climate change and the clean energy boom: “They represent massive benefits, millions of manufacturing jobs and clean air. If they are ignored, this enormous wealth will only be transferred to competing economies, while climate disasters worsen, causing material damage, harming food production and triggering prices and inflation.”
In its three withdrawals from its global commitments, the United States also loses a tool of influence and pressure on other economies, and renounces participating in decisions of global importance that these entities may make. When announcing the departure of the WHO – a 12-month process is now underway until it is completed – Trump justified it by the “inappropriate political influence of member states” within the organization, in an apparent complaint about China. In 2020, in the first attempt to leave the organization, he accused the institution of helping Beijing hide the origin of the covid pandemic. He also lamented the “unfairly burdensome payments” that the United States, the main contributing country, has to pay compared to other large economies such as China.
Washington contributes 18% of the WHO budget, out of a total of about $6.8 billion (same amount in euros), and its departure from the organization endangers a wide range of global health programs. “We hope that you reconsider your decision and that we can engage in a constructive dialogue to maintain the alliance between the United States and the WHO,” the Geneva-based institution has reacted to Trump’s announcement.
China, meanwhile, has begun to express its support for the organization. Foreign Ministry spokesperson in Beijing, Guo Jiakun, stressed that the WHO plays a fundamental role in global health governance and its role should be strengthened, not weakened.
Trump’s vision extends to other members of his team. Its candidate for ambassador to the UN, Elise Stefanik, agreed this Tuesday in her confirmation hearing with Democratic Senator Chris Coons about the need to strengthen alliances with other partners to counter Beijing’s influence in the United Nations. But he has also promised a review of the funds that Washington contributes to the multilateral institution.
This skeptical vision of the Republican Administration’s multilateralism is combined with Trump’s declared interest in expanding US territory. On Monday in his inauguration speech he reiterated that interest, which includes the recovery of control of the Panama Canal and the annexation of Greenland (although he did not mention it in his words), and which have caused consternation in the allied countries.
The disdain for the multilateral order also adds to Trump’s transactional concept of international relations. In his signing of the executive orders last Monday he declared of Latin America: “They need us much more than we need them. We don’t need them.” And he repeated: “They need us. “Everyone needs us.”
If Trump insists on creating power vacuums in multilateral institutions, and on being contemptuous of other nations, he may well find that he precipitates what he claims to want to avoid, the increase in the influence of rival countries on the global stage and an intensification of relations. of the rest of the countries with Beijing. The gap left open in the green industries sector may be just the first example.
