American retrenchment will not benefit either the U.S. or international population. Instead of turning towards Trump-style isolationism, the United States should recommit to and strengthen the rules-based international order.
First, a rules-based international order backed by a unipolar United States benefits almost every member of the world’s economy. Primarily, the international system prompts trade. Institutions like the World Trade Organization have increased the profitability and predictability of trade through reducing protectionism and an effective dispute resolution process. This effect is empirically verified. Contrary to some, trade is never “forced”. It can only take effect if countries and people view the benefits and costs of trade and make a conscious decision to participate in globalization. The international system cannot “impose” WTO reforms or global trade; rather countries choose to participate because of the benefits it brings. The UN does not have an army of globalist super-soldiers; it has the proven success of economic policy. People choose to engage in trade because it is efficient and brings prosperity. A world without trade would leave hundreds of millions of people in poverty. Even if you think market exchanges have some inherently exploitative dynamic, it is still valuable to use that institution to decrease economic exploitation and suffering in developing economies.
Several other criticisms of free trade also fall flat. Environmental concerns, for example, are disproven by the small amount of global emissions that can be tied back to the processes of trade itself, and are easily outweighed by the efficiency and economic benefits, which can be used to decrease overall resource use, especially of highly polluting fuels like coal that are prevalent in less developed economics. Additionally, exposure to the world’s economic system creates an interdependence with other countries that can be leveraged to incentivize green transformation (for example, with the EU’s carbon tariff).
Some have suggested that the economic system upheld by global institutions has exploited underdeveloped countries, and that the trading system itself perpetuates this exploitation. However, this theory quickly falls flat when presented with examples. Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea were all able to effectively rise through the ranks of the global economy through effective institutions and political stability. This was also the conclusion of the winners of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics.
The international system benefits institutions in two ways. First, it promotes peace and stability which allows effective institutions to flourish. Second, institutions of the international system itself, such as the World Bank or World Economic Forum, help to promote effective institutions. In order to allow these institutions to continue to promote economic development, the United States should end its gridlock of the World Trade Organization, or else it will be responsible for poverty and political weakness in the Global South. Another policy that the United States could pursue to specifically increase trade with the Global South is to implement a free-trade system with low-income countries.
Alongside the economic benefits, trade has significant political benefits. The greatest is interdependence. During the Middle Ages, raiding was common because it was profitable. It was fairly efficient to carry off physical commodities such as gold, grain or livestock. Because trade was minimal, there were little opportunity costs to war compared to trade. However, the propensity of violence, especially raiding for economic benefits, has decreased since. First, trade directly increases the opportunity cost of war: it ends the ability to generate mutual efficiency through trade with your target country. It is also a product of economic development, which we have previously established that trade is beneficial for; it is far easier to steal the physical goods that underpinned a Medieval economy than the Apple brand or Pfizer intellectual property that the modern American economy runs on. Therefore, trade decreases war. This is supported by empirical evidence.
Even if trade only benefited developed economies, it would still benefit the Global South. Economic growth has been correlated with democracy as an optimistic populace is more open to change that they see as positive; economic decline produces (unjustified) xenophobia as voter react to immigration producing a nebulous “cultural decline” that they (falsely) perceived as undermining the country as a whole (including the economy). I think it is obvious that fascist leadership in the Global North is far worse for minorities and other countries than leaders of a liberal internationalist persuasion.
Second, the alternative to the rules based international order propagated by the European Union and United States is a “might makes right” world characterized by wars of domination and opportunity by revisionist powers. There are several countries that would take advantage of a weakening U.S. alliance system to further their imperial projects. For example, it is highly unlikely that peace will be maintained on the Korean peninsula or Taiwanese strait absent U.S defense commitments.
It benefits the U.S. to maintain these alliances. Not just because they maintain American leadership, but they also persevere peace in the international system. This is good for numerous reasons: it means fewer people die in senseless wars, economies are not shattered by the shocks of war, and nations can maintain independence and sovereignty.
Abandoning U.S. allies would lead to imperial expansionism. Russia would seek to recreate a European empire, expanding its periphery to include the Baltic States, and parts of Ukraine, Poland, Moldavia and Finland. China would expand its control over the independent people of Taiwan, as well as the territory of U.S. allies such as the Philippines and Japan. An unchecked Iran would continue to use its proxies forces to spread fear and destabilization throughout the Middle East. Direct control by these revisionist powers would be far worse than their current independent political regimes, backed by American support. These powers recreate imperial dynamics far more than the United States.
While there are legitimate criticisms of the U.S. inclusion of minorities, America is foremost a republic where the vast majority of citizens have political power and there is little de jure oppression of minorities. This can easily be contrasted to the Russian treatment of the Chechens or Chinese abuse of the Uyghur people, which is suppression of their periphery to allow for resource extraction to the core. These imperial systems are also worse for civil liberties that are fundamental to human thriving, such as the freedom of speech, religion and assembly. While the U.S. is not perfect, the model and ideals that it strives towards are the opposite of the imperial authoritarianism that we see in the Russian, Chinese or Iranian regimes.
Even if you think that the U.S. has been hypocritical in terms of civil liberties or imperialism, it is still a question of how those systems can be reformed in the future. The U.S.’s democratic regime is open to reform and change. America’s legitimacy is not built on the suppression of minorities or imperial expansion, but rather abstract liberal values. On the other hand, authoritarian governments necessarily have to suppress civil liberties and engage in racialized conquest in order to maintain their regimes. The U.S. can become less imperialist, and not lose legitimacy. However, Russia and China have staked their legitimacy on the conquest of Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively. Iran relies on maintaining an Islamic theocracy to justify the regime. Even if the U.S. doesn’t always hold to its values, it at least has values. Inconsistent rules are better than none. Authoritarian regimes want to create an order of “might makes right”, which is far worse for every country; a somewhat weak U.S. defense of the rules-based international liberal order is preferable.
While the U.S. does promote international liberalism, there are steps that the United States could take to bolster the rules-based international order. America can commit to collaboration with other countries that promote the rule of law. A key actor here is the European Union, which is a leader in the promotion of human rights and liberal values through diplomacy. The U.S. should seek greater alignment with Europe. This could include integration into multilateral institutions, supranational courts, or even eventual accession to the EU and its binding supranational requirements for human rights. The U.S. should also continue to follow the tenets of the UN charter. This includes a respect for the territorial integrity of independent nations. We should reject calls for military intervention in Greenland or Panama as a blatant attack on the international order. Even if America desires action by these countries, we should use diplomacy and inducement to achieve our aims, instead of force. Additional suggestions for U.S. accession to the rule of law can be found in my other articles here and here.
