TRUMP’S WITHDRAWAL DOCTRINE

Trump has pulled the United States out of every manner of multilateral agreement and institution overseas in the name of going it alone. Going it alone, though, makes little sense in a world increasingly defined by global challenges that can best be met through collective, not individual, action.

1. Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)
2. World Heath Organization (WHO) cut off funding and threatened to withdraw
3. Open Skies Treaty (leaving)
4. Paris Climate Accord
5. 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal
6. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF)
7. UNESCO
8. U.N. Human Rights Council

Whatever the motive behind these withdrawals, it comes at a high price. Withdrawal from the Paris pact has alienated many allies who rightly see climate change as an existential challenge. Serial withdrawal from treaties adds a heavy dose of unpredictability and unreliability to U.S. foreign policy.For friends and allies, the possibility of withdrawal can leave them to question their decision to place their security in American hands.

Without a United States to rely on, allies are faced with the unappealing choice of deferring to a powerful neighbor, building up their own military capabilities, or both. Either outcome works against U.S. interests and can create opportunities for competitors, such as China, to gain standing at US expense.

Making matters worse is that the withdrawals were unilateral. It would have been very different had the United States consulted with allies and partners and approached the WHO with a package of reforms, making clear that if they were not undertaken, all the countries would fund a new organization better able to meet global health challenges. In the case of Iran, withdrawal undermined prospects for getting France, Britain and Germany on board an approach that would have extended critical provisions of the 2015 agreement in exchange for selective lifting of sanctions.

In principle, withdrawal from an international agreement can be warranted by its flaws. This was the explanation for leaving the Iran nuclear deal. It can also be justified by a judgment that one or more parties are violating the accord. This was the argument with the INF and the Open Skies treaties.

But any agreement negotiated with others is inevitably imperfect. The question to ask is not whether an arrangement is flawed, but whether it is less flawed than an alternative arrangement that could be negotiated, or preferable to living with no agreement and acting unilaterally. So far, at least, evidence is scant that withdrawal has paved the way to something better; to the contrary, as a doctrine, it is leading to diminished U.S. influence, prosperity and security.