The Rapidly Shifting Sands of Multilateralism:Adaption and Change in a New International Order
With geopolitical tensions high, and the United States rethinking its relation to numerous multilateral institutions and bodies, many pundits, scholars, and diplomats have openly speculated if we are witnessing the demise of global cooperation. But, is this the case? A closer look at the last year actually suggests that multilateralism is rapidly evolving to meet the needs of the moment rather than becoming obsolete. Global cooperation is entering a period of both significant concern and genuine dynamism.
Introduction
President Trump’s second term, by almost any measure, has been a highly consequential shock to the very underpinnings of the modern multilateral system. Washington’s hard shift on global cooperation has landed with disproportionate impact because the United States was the prime architect, and often the prime guarantor, of the post-World War II multilateral order.
On a wide range of fronts – trade, security, the environment, development assistance, and more – the United States is now actively disavowing the very structures and partnerships which it nurtured on a bipartisan basis for almost 80 years and that served as the backbone of its unprecedented security and prosperity.
Whether it has been threats to invade the territory of a fellow NATO member in the pursuit of controlling Greenland, sharply curtailing its contributions to UN agencies, or its haphazard application of tariffs, the Trump Administration seems to have embraced a zero-sum outlook to the world.
Worse still, this comes at a time when there were already sharp questions if the current multilateral system was fit for purpose. Russian aggression against Ukraine, in clear violation of the United Nations charter, has continued unchecked. And many in the Global South feel, with considerable justification, that the very design of current multilateral systems undervalues their voice, interests, and aspirations, in everything from security to economics, at a time when issues like mounting debt service obligations and reduced foreign aid flows are sharply undercutting their development prospects.
However, while the current environment ripples with uncertainty, the value proposition that drives multilateral cooperation remains constant: countries engage in international cooperation, however flawed, because it is a proven mechanism to advance their interests in achieving shared stability, prosperity, and growth. While it may feel counter-intuitive amid the current news cycles, multilateralism is well positioned to survive the current storm. The importance of collaboration is increasing, not decreasing– even if this collaboration is taking different forms than it has traditionally.
In short, the reports of the demise of multilateralism are greatly exaggerated. Instead, this is a moment when multilateralism, rather than dying, is beginning what is better seen as a great reordering. With the existing multilateral system deeply beleaguered, countries across the globe are exploring, and implementing, new alliances and establishing new multilateral mechanisms to meet their needs.
Importantly, this dramatic evolution of systems must recognize the need for the Global South to play a larger role in multilateral decision-making. Historically underrepresented in multilateralism, the Global South must assert greater influence in shaping international financial and governance structures. Finding common policy positions and investing in the capacity to effectively influence ongoing negotiations will be vital if the Global South hopes to be successful in that effort. Recent developments, such as the African Union’s inclusion as a permanent member of the G20, signal incremental progress in that direction, but much more needs to be done.
None of this is to suggest that recent multilateral agreements are perfect or that the international community will not experience significant economic and geo-political turbulence in the months and years ahead. Instead, it is to argue that a moment of great change is at hand, and that we have an important moment to re-envision a multilateral system that works for all.
Let us then turn to the catalogue, which is certainly not meant to be fully comprehensive, of very recent multilateral agreements across trade and finance, security, and other areas of global cooperation (with many of these occurring in the first half of 2025) that provide evidence of this multilateral evolution.
Trade and Finance
Perhaps no area of multilateralism is more intensely dynamic at the current juncture than trade and finance, with a panoply of relationships and partnerships changing almost by the hour.
Mercosur-European Union Free Trade Pact
In December 2024, Mercosur – a trade bloc in South America between Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay – and the European Union finalized a free trade agreement that eliminates tariffs on over 90 percent of goods. Negotiations to create the free trade pact had stretched over a quarter century, and, as Federico Steinberg of the Center for Strategic and International Studies notes, the final agreement “reduced tariffs on manufactured goods in Mercosur countries while liberalizing agricultural trade in the European Union—a sector long protected by European policies.” Working through disputes on environmental standards, protectionism, and industrial regulations was a key to reaching success, and the pact now creates a new free trade zone of some 800 million people. The agreement also reflects a recommitment by all parties to the Paris Climate Agreement.
As Steinberg also notes, “the rise of protectionism, exemplified by Donald Trump's reelection, pushed the European Union and Mercosur to act. Both blocs, as advocates of an open, rules-based economic order, saw the agreement as a way to reaffirm their commitment to rules-based free trade.” The agreement still requires ratification by the European Parliament to go into force, but even some traditional opponents of the deal have begun to rethink that opposition in light of current events. As Euro News comments, “Amid mounting pressure from the trade tensions sparked by the United States, some in France are beginning to see merit in the EU-Mercosur agreement, viewing it as a strategic response to growing economic uncertainty.” Echoing that sentiment, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen argued that, “this agreement is not just an economic opportunity, it is a political necessity.”
A Bevy of Regional Trade Agreements
Given the failure to achieve far-reaching trade agreements through the World Trade Organization over the last decade, and the more recent U.S. enthusiasm for punishing tariff regimes, multilateral cooperation on trade has been increasingly pushed into a patchwork of regional trade agreements.
For example, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, made up of 15 countries including China, Australia, Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea, is currently the world’s largest free trade area. This group accounts for roughly a third of both global GDP and population. The partnership came into force for ten of its signatories in 2022.
The World Economic Forum argues, “This expansion reinforces RCEP's role as a stabilizing force against rising protectionism and underscores the importance of intra-regional trade, which has grown significantly under the agreement…it represents a pragmatic and resilient approach to multilateralism in an era of global uncertainty.”
It is also no coincidence that China, Japan, and South Korea held their first economic dialogue in five years in March 2025, with Reuters reporting that “the three Asian export powers” were bracing themselves “from U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs.” China is also clearly trying to take advantage of anger with U.S. tariffs to expand its web of multilateral trade agreements and influence whether it be through the RCEP, joint agreements with South Korea and Japan, or other means.
As the Policy Center for the New South argues, many countries are expanding their trade ties to “de-risk from too much reliance on the American economy.” Particularly notable in this regard is EU efforts to bolster its economic linkages with Africa through Global Gateway investment packages and economic partnership agreements.
The Hinrich Foundation also notes the relative explosion of regional trade agreements in recent years, citing them as a “dynamic source of trade liberalization, particularly in the Global South. The foundation also notes that, at times, overlapping free trade agreements are sometimes “underutilized because of their small number of participants and, often, limited scope,” and “the solution to this problem has been the creation of modern ‘mega-regional’ agreements, including the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).”
The Pandemic Treaty
The April 2025 agreement on a global pandemic treaty by members of the World Health Organization, or WHO, is highly notable in several respects when discussing the evolving nature of multilateralism. The agreement emerged after three years of challenging negotiations which, at moments, appeared deeply deadlocked. The agreement to help prevent future pandemics is legally binding and, perhaps most notably, was reached without U.S. participation after the United States formalized its withdrawal from the WHO in February 2025.
Building upon the lessons of the Covid pandemic, the treaty increases information and data sharing about new diseases and spells out steps for scientists, researchers, and drug companies to collaborate more rapidly in treating emerging disease. When announcing the agreement, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared, “multilateralism is alive and well,” and added, “in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground, and a shared response to shared threats."
This is only the second time that the WHO reached such an international agreement, the first being a tobacco control agreement struck in 2003. At times, the negotiations bogged down on long-contentious issues such as intellectual property, vaccine access and production, and the question of whether developing countries were being asked to take on additional obligations without the resources to match these requirements.
Success in reaching an agreement required some concessions from all sides, and Brazil played a particularly important role in finding common ground between the non-U.S. members of the Group of Seven nations and key Global South blocs.
As Nina Schwalbe, a global health consultant, told the New York Times when the agreement was announced, “It shows that with or without the U.S., the world can pull together for global health, and a recognition that pandemics require global solidarity.” She added of the negotiators, “They pushed past their red lines and they got to agreement. That’s no easy feat for 191 states. And there’s a lot in there. It’s maybe not as strong as we wanted on many issues, but there’s lots to build on.”
It is indeed accurate that the final treaty was not as ambitious as some global health experts hoped when negotiations began, but it does seem to represent a major step forward and a platform for cooperation on which the international community can continue to build over time.
Action on a Wide Range of Fronts
While the media narrative around multilateralism has been quite negative of late, the track record demonstrates that multilateral agreements continue to be reached and that the coalitions that have driven successful negotiations have often been somewhat non-traditional, with the Global South playing an increasingly important role on issues that affect them deeply.
Last year’s Pact for the Future at the United Nations was adopted in the face of ardent opposition from the Russian delegation. When Russia introduced a last-minute amendment, the African Group, led by the Republic of the Congo, was instrumental in getting the Pact adopted by consensus.
The General Assembly voted in November 2023 to establish a UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation, breaking the traditional OECD domination of international tax discussions. The Africa Group was again key to driving this initiative.
Small-Island Developing States are now powerful advocates for action on climate change, an existential challenge for their populations. Member States are also moving closer to hopefully ratifying the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement to promote the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in the high seas, areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Member States committed themselves to continued negotiations on the global plastics treaty, which would develop a legally binding agreement on ending plastic pollution.
In April 2025, the International Maritime Organization agreed to a plan that would help the shipping industry achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Delegates agreed to a series of progressively ambitious and binding targets to cut gas emissions from ocean shipping, which amount to about 3 percent of all emissions globally. U.S. officials have strongly objected to the agreement. "Let’s not get dazzled by the drama — this isn’t the United States of Shipping," said Anais Rios of Seas at Risk, “There are 175 countries in the room, and delegates are rolling up their sleeves to find the best path forward. One country trying to play the disruptor doesn’t change the fact that global cooperation is the real headline here.”
Recent moves by the Trump Administration toward mining in international waters has reignited intense action and interest around the 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which gave nations exclusive economic rights over waters within 200 nautical miles of their coasts, but gave the International Seabed Authority jurisdiction over international waters. (The U.S. was not a signatory to the original agreement, but had not sought to allow mining by American companies in these international waters until the Trump Administration.) As the New York Times notes, “More than 30 countries have called for a delay or moratorium on the start of seabed mining. An array of automakers and tech companies including BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, Apple, Google and Samsung have pledged not to use seabed minerals. Representative Ed Case of Hawaii in January introduced the American Seabed Protection Act, which would prohibit NOAA from issuing licenses or permits for seafloor mining activities.”
Conclusion
While it has been easy for many commentators to look at the current global landscape and bemoan the rapid erosion in a number of longstanding multilateral partnerships and norms, a more nuanced view makes clear that the glass is at least half-full. There is a broad swathe of sensible capitals that realize they have a unique role in maintaining, and often redefining, cooperative international frameworks, institutions, and partnerships that advance their interests. This process is rarely neat, and it is never perfect, but it offers enduring value.
The spate of recent activity in areas from trade to the pandemic accord make clear that while the United States has often been an inordinately powerful player on the multilateral landscape it is far from its only architect or beneficiary. The international community has entered a period of significant reinvention and reengineering of multilateralism, and there is every evidence that active engagement in that process offers significant rewards.