In 2018, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution to commemorate 24 April as the International Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy for Peace. The contemporary world needs multilateralism far more than at any point in the past, precisely because it is now more deeply interconnected than ever before.
The far-reaching consequences of the Ukraine war, and especially the current U.S.-Iran conflict, have made it abundantly clear that there is little that can still be described as purely local; every major crisis now carries immediate global repercussions. The disruption of energy markets, supply chains, food security, and international financial stability demonstrates how conflict in one region quickly reverberates across the world.
Moreover, transnational challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and the regulation of artificial intelligence further reinforce the reality that no single nation, regardless of its power, can address these issues in isolation.
From rising global temperatures to public health emergencies and the ethical governance of emerging technologies, these are inherently global problems that demand collective solutions and coordinated international action. Accordingly, the principles of multilateralism and diplomacy for peace should not merely be aspirational ideals but the defining order of the twenty-first century.
Yet, at this defining moment in history, I find myself questioning whether this day ought to be celebrated at all. Perhaps it is more fitting to mourn the steady erosion of the very principles it seeks to uphold. Multilateralism today is not merely being ignored; it is being systematically weakened, if not outright dismantled, by those who once proudly presented themselves as its foremost champions and as the principal advocates of diplomacy in the service of peace.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, through his doctrines of moral diplomacy and open diplomacy, laid the intellectual groundwork for the emergence of multilateralism in international politics. He advocated a decisive departure from the traditional balance-of-power model that had long governed interstate relations, envisioning instead an international order anchored in collective security, the rule of international law, and transparent cooperation among nations.
The very state that once positioned itself as the principal architect and guardian of the post-war international order now appears increasingly willing to sideline the norms and institutions it once urged the world to uphold
As the principal architect of the League of Nations and the leading proponent of the Fourteen Points, Wilson provided the conceptual foundations of modern multilateralism, reshaping the language and practice of international diplomacy for the twentieth century and beyond.
But today, the blatant disregard for international law, United Nations resolutions, and the most elementary norms of diplomacy leaves no doubt that the so-called sole surviving superpower, the United States, has no regard left for a genuine commitment to multilateralism and diplomacy for peace. Ironically, the very state that once positioned itself as the principal architect and guardian of the post-war international order now appears increasingly willing to sideline the norms and institutions it once urged the world to uphold.
The twenty-first century began with 9/11, an event that profoundly shocked the world and is widely regarded as a defining turning point in contemporary international politics. It is often said that after 11 September 2001, the world was never the same again. The appropriate response to such an unprecedented global tragedy should have been the strengthening of multilateral cooperation and the empowerment of the United Nations to lead a coordinated international response against the common threat of terrorism.
Yet, President George W. Bush largely framed 9/11 as an attack on America alone and chose to respond through an increasingly unilateral strategic doctrine. This approach ultimately gave rise to the so-called Global War on Terror, which, while supported by some allies, was primarily driven by Washington’s own security agenda rather than by a genuinely United Nations-led multilateral framework.
The United Nations Security Council had responded swiftly to the 9/11 attacks through Resolutions 1368 and 1373, both of which unequivocally condemned the attacks and mandated collective action against international terrorism, including measures such as freezing terrorist assets, preventing financial support, and strengthening international cooperation among states.
These resolutions were primarily aimed at combating the global threat of terrorism and did not amount to a formal declaration of war against Afghanistan. Rather, they established a legal and diplomatic framework for coordinated counterterrorism action under international law.
Yet, the Bush administration not only proceeded to occupy Afghanistan but soon extended its unilateral military doctrine to Iraq as well, doing so on deeply questionable grounds and without clear United Nations approval—an act that many critics regarded as one of the most consequential blows to multilateralism in the early twenty-first century.
President Trump took the trajectory of unilateralism to unprecedented levels during his first term in office (2017–2021). Guided by his America First doctrine, he withdrew the United States from several major multilateral frameworks, including the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), the Paris Climate Agreement, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, and the United Nations Human Rights Council. These decisions signalled a clear departure from the post-war tradition of American leadership within international institutions and treaties.
The twentieth century opened with Woodrow Wilson’s vision of a rules-based international order anchored in collective security, only for that vision to be institutionalised through the creation of the United Nations in the aftermath of two devastating world wars
Reports now indicate that the Trump administration has expanded this approach even further in its current term, moving to withdraw from sixty-six multilateral entities, including thirty-one United Nations-affiliated bodies and thirty-five non-United Nations organisations. According to the White House, these institutions are viewed as “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful”, and the administration has justified halting financial support for them as a measure intended to “save taxpayer money” and restore what it calls American sovereignty.
President Trump’s America First doctrine and his overtly bilateral approach have rendered not only the United Nations increasingly irrelevant in Washington’s strategic thinking but have also brought even long-established multilateral alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation under fire. By dismissing the United Nations as a forum for “anti-Americanism” and “left-wing activism”, Trump has openly challenged the legitimacy of the very institutions designed to uphold multilateral diplomacy and peace.
At the same time, his confrontational approach towards the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—particularly during the ongoing U.S.-Iran crisis—has intensified concerns over the future of transatlantic security cooperation. The administration is reportedly exploring the possibility of penalising North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies for refusing to follow Washington’s lead against Iran, exposing the deepening crisis within the architecture of Western multilateralism itself.
Against this backdrop of global diplomatic paralysis, Pakistan has, encouragingly, emerged as a key peace broker between Iran and the United States. At a time when hopes for multilateral diplomacy were rapidly diminishing, and President Trump had openly threatened to bomb Iran “back to the Stone Age”, Islamabad ensured that the channels of diplomacy remained open.
Through sustained backchannel engagement and active facilitation, Pakistan played a meaningful role in helping prevent further escalation and in supporting efforts that contributed to a temporary ceasefire between Washington and Tehran. This development underscores Pakistan’s growing relevance as a facilitator of dialogue at moments when traditional diplomatic mechanisms appear increasingly constrained.
In many ways, the trajectory of modern international relations embodies a profound paradox. The twentieth century opened with Woodrow Wilson’s vision of a rules-based international order anchored in collective security, only for that vision to be institutionalised through the creation of the United Nations in the aftermath of two devastating world wars.
Yet, in the twenty-first century, this very architecture of multilateralism appears increasingly fragile. Rising unilateralism among major powers, the growing disregard for international law, and the weakening authority of global institutions have all contributed to a deepening crisis of confidence in diplomacy itself.
In this troubled context, the emergence of states such as Pakistan as facilitators of dialogue serves as a modest yet meaningful reminder that diplomacy is not obsolete.
If multilateralism is to retain its relevance in an era marked by interconnected crises and geopolitical fragmentation, its survival will depend not only on the intentions of great powers but also on the willingness of middle powers to keep channels of communication open when others choose confrontation over cooperation.
Ultimately, the future of global peace may well rest on the capacity of nations to revive the spirit of collective responsibility that once formed the very foundation of the international order.