The United States is no longer willing to bear the responsibility of maintaining world order. It is now time for other countries to take up this responsibility.

A man leaves the United Nations headquarters in New York [Photo: Carlo Allegri/Reuters]

On February 28, the United States and Israel launched a war against Iran. The attacks by the US and Israel were unannounced and not approved by the UN, targeting Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and killing him.

Just two months ago, the US conducted another attack on Venezuela, where its special forces kidnapped President Nicolas Maduro from his residence in Caracas and transferred him to New York, where he faces federal court criminal charges.

Trump threatened to cut aid if the UN voted on Jerusalem

Between these two violent attacks, US President Donald Trump withdrew from 66 international organizations, including 31 UN agencies, and established a Peace Commission - a new body headed by himself, which he hinted could replace the UN.

Recent developments and others show that the world order helped establish in 1945 no longer serves the US interests.

For eight decades, the wealth, diplomacy, and military power of the US have supported this system. Regardless of how people criticize the way the US has used this power, the scale of its commitment is impressive, and the US was not forced to do so. It was its own choice.

The world in 2026 is vastly different from that in 1945. Europe has been rebuilt. China has risen. Canada, Japan, South Korea, and many Gulf states have become wealthy. Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, India, Vietnam and other countries are rising.

The current threats - climate change, pandemics, terrorism, etc. - were almost unimaginable when the UN Charter was drafted. Americans have reason to question why they should continue to bear an disproportionate burden for a system designed for a world that no longer exists.

The problem is what the rest of the world intends to do. For a long time, multilateralism has been something the US provided and other countries enjoyed. European countries rely on US security guarantees while criticizing US foreign policy. Developing countries demand reform while relying on US funds. Small countries like those in the Caribbean cite international law as our umbrella, but rarely contribute to enforcing it.

If we truly value this system, we must prove it with concrete actions, not just empty words.

A strong first step is to move the UN headquarters out of New York to face reality. Why should this global institution remain in a country that is leaving numerous members and establishing alternatives?

Relocation would show the international community's determination to maintain multilateralism, regardless of US participation, and our willingness to bear the corresponding costs. The UN headquarters has many options. Geneva and Vienna can offer neutrality. Nairobi and Rio de Janeiro could place the UN in the Global South.

Island nations are also an option: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Jamaica or Mauritius. Such choices would highlight that the UN now serves the vulnerable, not the powerful.

If the world can raise tens of billions of dollars for wars and relief, it can also fund the relocation of the headquarters.

More fundamentally, the UN needs a new funding model. The US provides about 22% of the regular budget, and the funding for peacekeeping operations is much higher. This dependency gives Washington too much influence and makes the UN a victim of US domestic politics.

If we value multilateralism, we must fill this gap. The EU, China, Japan, Gulf states and emerging economies must contribute according to their roles in a well-functioning international order. Diversified funding sources will ensure the survival of the UN and democratize global governance in the urgently needed way.

The outbreak of the current crisis highlights the urgency of these reforms. The attack on Iran could trigger a larger regional conflict, affecting Gulf states, disrupting global energy supplies, and plunging fragile economies into recession. The kidnapping of the Venezuelan president has also undermined stability in Latin America. It sets a precedent that any sovereign leader cannot escape the punishment of unilateral force.

Meanwhile, wars in Gaza and Sudan continue, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo remains mired in conflict in its eastern region, with millions of displaced people overwhelming neighboring countries. In each case, the UN Security Council has proven unable or unwilling to act, and its paralysis lies in the veto mechanism that inherently grants power over the weak.

A re-sited and revitalized UN, with diverse funding sources and no longer dependent on a single sponsor, although it cannot solve these crises overnight, can act with greater legitimacy and less selective morality. It can authorize the establishment of humanitarian corridors without worrying that the geopolitical interests of a member state might hinder action. It can convene emergency meetings to discuss energy price stability, coordinate debt relief for countries on the brink of bankruptcy due to commodity shocks caused by conflicts, and deploy peacekeeping operations that do not depend on any national budget politics. The key is not that the reformed UN would be perfect, but that the current UN is structurally incapable of responding to urgent situations that require collective action.

Every month delayed only widens the gap between the UN's commitments and actual actions, and undermines the confidence of the most vulnerable countries in defending multilateralism.

Building a climate framework also requires more urgent action. The US withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change threatens the Green Climate Fund, the Adaptation Fund, and the Loss and Damage mechanism. These mechanisms are lifelines, not empty theories, for small island developing states and other climate-vulnerable countries.

Although the window for building climate financing without US participation is short, it is not nonexistent. Europe must demonstrate its climate leadership with real resources. China, as the world's largest emitter, has the capacity to make important contributions if it wants to establish moral leadership.

For the Caribbean, this shift requires both humility and ambition. Humility stems from the framework we have long relied on yet rarely invested in. Our ambition comes from having 14 seats in the UN General Assembly, moral authority at the forefront of climate change, and a tradition of achieving much with little.

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) should propose a resolution on headquarters relocation and funding reform, convene like-minded countries, and strengthen the Caribbean Court as a regional pillar to address global mechanism failures. A group representing small island developing states, Africa, and other developing countries could have enough strength to reshape the governance landscape.

The US remains the world's largest economy, the strongest military power, and the home of many institutions, universities, companies, and civil society organizations that drive global progress. There are still many Americans who believe in multilateralism and are influential. The door for the US to re-engage should always remain open.

However, the rest of the world cannot wait indefinitely for US domestic politics to resolve themselves. We must build strong enough institutions to function effectively regardless of US involvement.

In 1945, the US, though war-torn but generous, chose to build rather than retreat, shaping the world we inherited. In 2026, a very different US made a different choice. We should accept it willingly and recognize its nature - an invitation for us to finally take control of the international order we cherish.

Source: Al Jazeera

Author: C. Justin Robinson

This article reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7615346291366724142/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author alone.