Inter Press ServiceJordan Ryan - Author - Inter Press Service

The UN’s Withering Vine: A US Retreat from Global Governance

Jordan Ryan — Mon, 19 Jan 2026 13:20:43 +0000

Image: AI generated / shutterstock.com

By Jordan Ryan
Jan 19 2026 (IPS)

The Trump administration’s recent announcement of its withdrawal from 66 international organisations has been met with a mixture of alarm and applause. While the headline number suggests a dramatic retreat from the world stage, a closer look reveals a more nuanced, and perhaps more insidious, strategy. The move is less a wholesale abandonment of the United Nations system and more a targeted pruning of the multilateral vine, aimed at withering specific branches of global cooperation that the administration deems contrary to its interests. While the immediate financial impact may be less than feared, the long-term consequences for the UN and the rules-based international order are profound.

At first glance, the withdrawal appears to be a sweeping rejection of global engagement. The list of targeted entities is long and diverse, ranging from the well-known UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to more obscure bodies like the International Lead and Zinc Study Group. However, as Eugene Chen has astutely observed, the reality is more complex. The vast majority of the UN-related entities on the list are not independent international organisations, but rather subsidiary bodies, funds, and programmes of the UN itself. The administration is not, for now, withdrawing from the UN Charter, but rather selectively defunding and disengaging from the parts of the UN system it finds objectionable.

This selective approach reveals a clear ideological agenda. The targeted entities are overwhelmingly focused on issues that the Trump administration has long disdained: climate change, sustainable development, gender equality, and human rights. The list includes the UN’s main development arm, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs; its primary gender entity, UN Women; and a host of bodies dedicated to peacebuilding and conflict prevention. The inclusion of the UN’s regional economic commissions, which play a vital role in promoting regional cooperation and development, is particularly telling. This is not simply a cost-cutting exercise; it is a deliberate attempt to dismantle the architecture of global cooperation in areas that do not align with the administration’s narrow, nationalist worldview.

The decision to remain a member of the UN’s specialised agencies, such as the World Health Organization (from which the administration has already announced its withdrawal in a separate action) and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is equally revealing. This is not a sign of a renewed commitment to multilateralism, but rather a cold, calculated decision based on a narrow definition of US national security interests. The administration has made it clear that it sees these agencies as useful tools to counter the influence of a rising China. This ‘à la carte’ approach to multilateralism, where the US picks and chooses which parts of the system to support based on its own geopolitical interests, is deeply corrosive to the principles of collective security and universal values that underpin the UN Charter.

What, then, should be done? The international community cannot afford to simply stand by and watch as the UN system is hollowed out from within. A concerted effort is needed to mitigate the damage and reaffirm the importance of multilateral cooperation.

First, other member states must step up to fill the financial and leadership void left by the United States. This will require not only increased financial contributions, but also a renewed political commitment to the UN’s work in the areas of sustainable development, climate action, and human rights. Second, civil society organisations and the academic community have a crucial role to play in monitoring the impact of the US withdrawal and advocating for the continued relevance of the affected UN entities. Finally, the UN itself must do a better job of communicating its value to a sceptical public. The organisation must move beyond bureaucratic jargon and technical reports to tell a compelling story about how its work makes a real difference in the lives of people around the world.

The Trump administration’s latest move is a stark reminder that the post-war international order can no longer be taken for granted. It is a call to action for all who believe in the power of multilateralism to address our shared global challenges. The UN may be a flawed and imperfect institution, but it remains our best hope for a more peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world. We must not allow it to wither on the vine.

Jordan Ryan is a member of the Toda International Research Advisory Council (TIRAC) at the Toda Peace Institute, a Senior Consultant at the Folke Bernadotte Academy and former UN Assistant Secretary-General with extensive experience in international peacebuilding, human rights, and development policy. His work focuses on strengthening democratic institutions and international cooperation for peace and security. Ryan has led numerous initiatives to support civil society organisations and promote sustainable development across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. He regularly advises international organisations and governments on crisis prevention and democratic governance.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

The New Fragility: Peacebuilding Meets Digital Democracy

Jordan Ryan — Mon, 08 Dec 2025 06:49:48 +0000

Credit: Roman023_photography / shutterstock.com

By Jordan Ryan
Dec 8 2025 (IPS)

Established democracies are exhibiting governance stresses that were once associated primarily with fragile and conflict-affected states. Polarisation is weakening institutional trust, fragmenting civic norms, and reducing societies’ ability to solve problems collectively. This is the new fragility. At the same time, governments and civil society organisations are adopting digital tools to support public participation. These deliberative technologies hold real promise, but in polarised environments they also carry risks. Their success depends on the same principles that have guided peacebuilding efforts for decades.

Across regions, the political landscape has shifted in ways that mirror dynamics familiar from post-conflict settings. Deepening identity rifts, distrust of institutions, and competing factual narratives are reshaping public life in countries long regarded as stable. Polarisation is no longer a peripheral concern; it has become a structural condition of governance. When institutions lose legitimacy and fear becomes a central organising force, formal capacity alone is insufficient to maintain stability.

In this environment, deliberative technologies are being introduced with the expectation that they can expand participation and strengthen decision-making. These systems are designed for structured listening and collaborative problem-solving. Yet many are deployed in contexts marked by distrust, grievance, and political contestation. Digital participation cannot succeed if it is layered onto institutions already viewed as partisan or unresponsive. Without the operating disciplines of peacebuilding, these tools risk amplifying the very divisions they aim to mitigate.

The dynamics of polarisation shape this new fragility in three interconnected ways. First, political allegiance is increasingly tied to perceived identity threat. Affective polarisation has become a defining feature of public life, narrowing the space for compromise. Second, fragmented information ecosystems reward outrage and accelerate the spread of misinformation, leaving citizens with incompatible understandings of basic facts. Third, institutions responsible for moderating conflict—courts, election bodies, public administrators, and independent media—are being reframed as partisan actors. When these bodies lose legitimacy, societies fall into conflict-habituated patterns in which escalation becomes predictable and attempts at compromise appear suspect.

Recent developments in the United States illustrate how these pressures unfold in a consolidated democracy. Executive actions that centralised administrative power, weakened professional civil service structures, and transformed technical governance issues into cultural battlegrounds created conditions more familiar from fragile states than from established democracies. Large-scale civil service layoffs reduced institutional memory and policy capacity. Oversight mechanisms were politicised. Rules governing public sector technology, including artificial intelligence, became instruments of ideological conflict rather than public stewardship. Similar patterns are emerging elsewhere, revealing how fragile the foundations of democratic governance can become when institutions are systematically undermined.

To address this new fragility, deliberative technology must be regarded as a governance challenge, not a technical solution. A peacebuilding-informed framework offers practical guidance built on three essential foundations. First, governance must take precedence over gadgets. Deliberative platforms are never neutral; their design, oversight, and data management all structure power and influence. Democratic systems require transparent decision rules and independent oversight. Mechanisms such as multi-stakeholder oversight bodies or community data trusts can institutionalise accountability and ensure that deliberation remains a civic rather than commercial function.

Second, impact measurement must replace engagement metrics. Participation numbers do not reflect democratic value. What matters is whether public input shapes institutional decisions in clear and traceable ways. Demonstrating this link is essential for rebuilding trust. Without it, digital participation becomes symbolic and can deepen cynicism.

Third, the peacebuilding lens must serve as an essential safeguard. Peacebuilding offers practical disciplines vital in polarised environments. Conflict sensitivity demands careful assessment of power dynamics before platform deployment. Trauma awareness helps ensure emotional safety. Inclusion requires active, not passive, measures to bring marginalised voices into decision-making. Sequencing recognises that facilitated dialogue may be needed before deliberation in highly polarised contexts.

Translating these principles into practice requires several concrete priorities. Public agencies should adopt procurement standards that require open-source platforms, transparent algorithms, and independent oversight of deliberation data. Funders should assess deliberative initiatives based on democratic impact rather than uptake or engagement metrics, using accountability scorecards to track the link between public input and institutional action. Professionalising the role of digital facilitators—through training in conflict sensitivity, power analysis, and trauma-aware engagement—would strengthen the quality and safety of online deliberation.

The boundary between “fragile” and “stable” democracies is no longer clear. Polarisation acts as a form of systemic fragility that erodes institutions from within. If this is the defining governance challenge of the current moment, then peacebuilding must become a central democratic skillset. The question isn’t whether to embrace digital participation tools, but how to ground them in governance practices that enable societies to manage conflict constructively.

Looking ahead, the test cases are already emerging. From citizen assemblies addressing climate policy to AI-powered platforms promising to revolutionise public consultation, each new deployment offers an opportunity to apply these lessons. The Toda Peace Institute’s forthcoming Barcelona workshop on deliberative technology and democratic governance exemplifies how practitioners are beginning to integrate these approaches. By focusing on governance rather than gadgets, on impact rather than engagement, and on peacebuilding principles as essential safeguards, digital participation can contribute to a more resilient democratic future. The alternative—continued techno-solutionism without the wisdom of conflict management—risks accelerating the very fragmentation these tools promise to heal.

Other articles by this author:
The Empire Has No Clothes: America’s Democratic Sermons and the Authoritarian Boomerang
Weaponisation of Law: Assault on Democracy
A Vicious Spiral: Political Violence in Fragile Democracies
Reluctant Truth-Tellers and Institutional Fragility

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau