Debatable: The value of multilateral organizations

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argues that multilateral institutions are necessary to push back against China and Russia:

“Multilateral institutions are a force multiplier for advancing American interests. Whether it’s collective defense through NATO, preventing pandemics, or stopping the flow of fentanyl through the UN, international organizations advance American priorities, provide stability and spread the burden so it’s not just American taxpayers footing the bill. The UN isn’t perfect, but it is necessary, and with strong US leadership, meaningful reforms are possible.

“Unfortunately, this administration is threatening to walk away from many multilateral institutions, slashing funding on the way out. Even as both parties agree China is one of our greatest challenges, its policies have weakened America’s position and strengthened China’s hand. At the United Nations, Beijing has steadily expanded its influence while the US has cut staff.

“Pulling back cedes ground to adversaries like China, Russia and Iran. If we’re not at the table, our interests aren’t represented on issues like global peace and security, trade or artificial intelligence and technology standards. And when that happens, it will be felt in Americans’ daily lives, in the competitiveness of our workers, the security of our allies, and in the safety of the products we use.”

Rafiq Dossani, a senior economist at RAND, argues that multilateral organizations are growing less and less effective:

“It seems that, despite its proud past, multilateralism is in retreat. Most agree on its necessity for managing global public goods or harms. For example, ensuring the security of commercial shipping from piracy is a widespread need that remains largely unaddressed. This ideally requires multilateral management: states coordinate patrols, negotiate equitable burden-sharing, and operate under a multilateral framework. Yet reaching such arrangements is rarely straightforward.

“The South China Sea exemplifies this tension. As one of the world’s busiest shipping corridors, its management should fall under multilateral cooperation. Instead, competing territorial claims among littoral states — particularly China and its Southeast Asian neighbors — combined with the involvement of non-littoral powers such as Japan, South Korea, and the United States, have hindered collective action on piracy.

“China’s rejection of other countries’ naval patrols, along with accusations of its diversion of anti-piracy patrols for coercive purposes, has weakened anti-piracy efforts. Counter-accusations by other states deepen mistrust, leaving cooperative security arrangements elusive.

“The example of the South China Sea pinpoints the problem: the post-Cold War emergence of multiple regional power centers. Negotiations serve not only to address collective goods but also increasingly to secure geopolitical advantage, often undermining cooperative outcomes.

“Multilateralism has always been of great potential value, but in today’s geopolitical world, its effectiveness has been compromised.”