Growing uncertainty about the state of the global rules-based order has intensified debate about the future of multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations (UN), as major powers like America reassess their commitments to the body. NGOZI EGENUKA reports that middle-tier states are weighing the options and opportunities available to sustain the body.

The current jiggling in global politics is raising concerns over the future of multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations (UN), especially as the United States recently exited 31 organisations associated with the UN.

Recent policy signals from the United States, alongside long-standing tensions between the UN and other major powers such as Russia and China, have fueled discussions about whether the UN still commands the authority needed to regulate global behaviour.

While criticism of the UN is not new, analysts increasingly note that open disengagement or reduced cooperation by leading global actors raises broader structural questions about the durability of international institutions.

Historically, the UN has served as a platform designed to manage conflict, coordinate global responses to crises, and establish norms around international law, human rights, and development.

However, to a broad extent, the effectiveness of these functions has often depended on the willingness of major powers to participate in and respect the system. When that cooperation weakens, the credibility and operational reach of the institution are affected.

In January 2026, the United States announced its withdrawal from 31 United Nations (UN) entities and agencies, as part of a broader move to exit 66 total international organisations. These withdrawals, directed by President Donald Trump targeted bodies deemed contrary to U.S. interests, including various commissions, specialised offices, and programmes.

This move followed the United States’ earlier announcement of its withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO), a process that was initiated on January 20, 2025 and officially completed on January 22, 2026, following a directive from President Trump.

The exit, driven by allegations of the WHO’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic and excessive influence, resulted in the cessation of all funding and personnel.

These moves may have created a global realignment, further strengthening discussions that power is no longer concentrated in a strictly bipolar or unipolar configuration. Instead, geopolitical influence is distributed across several major emerging centres, including the United States, China, Russia, the European Union, and regional blocs.

Speaking at the recently concluded World Economic Forum, Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney called for middle powers to work together to counter the rise of hard power and the great power rivalry, to build a more cooperative, resilient world.

Stating that the rules-based order is failing, he noted that such orders helped countries like his pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection. He argued the world is currently in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

“It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to get along, accommodate all manner of things to avoid trouble, hoping that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won’t,” he stated.

He urged countries occupying this middle tier of global influence to “work together to build something bigger, better, stronger and more just.

A major concern of America’s exit is not necessarily about the collapse of the UN as an institution, but rather about the gradual erosion of its authority if key global players begin to operate outside its framework. Critics of current trends warn that when powerful nations disengage from multilateral agreements or global bodies, it weakens enforcement mechanisms and reduces incentives for smaller states to comply with international norms.

For middle powers, the strategic dilemma is becoming clearer. On one hand, they benefit from a rules-based order that constrains unilateral dominance by larger states. On the other hand, if that order weakens, middle powers may be forced to recalibrate their foreign policy strategies toward regional alliances or issue-specific coalitions rather than relying on universal institutions.

The implications are particularly significant for countries classified as vulnerable or developing states, including many in Africa. Nations such as Nigeria have historically relied on multilateral institutions for development support, security cooperation, and diplomatic balancing between larger powers. Weakening of global institutions could mean reduced access to coordinated international responses to economic crises, pandemics, or conflict mediation.

For Nigeria and similar states, the evolving global order raises several strategic questions. One is whether to deepen engagement with regional organisations such as the African Union and ECOWAS as alternative platforms for influence and protection. Another is how to navigate competition among larger powers seeking economic or security partnerships across Africa.

The changing global environment also introduces funding uncertainties. Multilateral development programmes and international aid mechanisms are often linked to broader institutional cooperation. If geopolitical fragmentation intensifies, funding streams could become more politicised or tied to bilateral relationships rather than global frameworks or interests.

However, there is a possibility that global power redistribution could create opportunities. As competition between major powers expands, middle and smaller states may gain negotiating leverage by engaging multiple partners. However, such opportunities depend heavily on diplomatic capacity and economic stability.

The European Union’s evolving global posture adds another layer to the discussion. While the EU continues to support multilateralism, internal political and economic pressures have occasionally complicated unified external action.

Meanwhile, China’s growing role in global governance, through initiatives such as infrastructure financing and expanded participation in international organisations, reflects a broader shift toward multipolar influence. Russia’s relationship with global institutions has also been shaped by geopolitical tensions, further complicating consensus-building at the UN level.

With all these, uncertainty, no doubt, remains a defining feature of the moment. If major powers increasingly prioritise national or bloc-level arrangements over universal frameworks, the global system could become more fragmented. In such a scenario, enforcement of international law, coordination on global crises, and standard-setting across industries could become more complex.

Reacting to this, Director General, Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Prof Eghosa Osaghae, said that the United States is recalibrating its foreign policy. He said the United States was retooling the instruments of its foreign policy and that cancelling funding to multilateral institutions was one way of making “not a single country, but many countries together feel the pinch” of its decisions.

He argued that the move was significant because America had long been the major funder of many global bodies. He noted that if the United States pulled out of the United Nations and its specialised agencies, “many of those bodies will stop functioning.” He cited the World Health Organisation and institutions dealing with disarmament and climate change as examples of organisations that could face serious operational challenges.
He said the greatest burden would fall on less developed and fragile countries that depend heavily on humanitarian assistance.

He argued that it was time to “come back and look at the whole basis of multilateralism” and redefine its funding structures to allow other powers such as Japan, Germany, the EU, China and Russia to play stronger roles, while urging smaller countries to pool resources.

The don added that the broader American message was that countries should learn to rely more on its resources, describing the situation as a wake-up call against continued dependence on foreign aid.

Head, Early Warning System Centre, NIIA, Dr Omotola Ilesanmi, said that for Trump to disregard these organisations is an affront to international norms.

She, however, expressed optimism that after Trump’s tenure, the next president would bring America back to those organisations.

According to her, the move is reshaping global order negatively because multilateralism is global cooperation.

There are issues that are transnational.For instance, COVID-19 was beyond one country and required national cooperation, as did issues of terrorism. So pulling out of such organisations has a negative implication.

Professor of Political Science, Adele Jinadu, described Trump as a threat to the current global order, which is dynamic and can change with the situation. He expressed optimismthat those institutions would react to the threat posed to them.

He said that though the global world order is dynamic and reacting, unfortunately, African countries have not made as much impact as they should, meaning that the order does not support the continent.

He emphasised the need for African leaders to be more proactive and assertive rather than allowing themselves to be pushed away and around by the world powers.

Head, International Law Unit, NIIA, Dr Rita Agu, said the outcome of exiting these organisations is devastating for most countries like Nigeria, because such countries, especially those in Africa, leveraged on the help they get from all those international organisations.

“Though the United States has done a lot in respect of all those organisations, I think countries like Nigeria should now try to partner with other countries like China, European nations and Latin America to help further their interests,” she said.

For former Nigerian Ambassador to Angola, Layiwola Laseinde, it is America’s prerogative to decide if they want to stay in the organisations or not because they fund them.

“Their reason for exiting those organisations border on funding, although there might be other reasons. They made it clear that they don’t want to be paying money for organisations they don’t have control over,” he said.

He submitted thatsince those organisations would have less funds to run their activities,other nations, like Nigeria, with an interest in such organisations should step up.