The year 2025 began with an unexpected disruption to the international system, triggered by an unlikely source: the United States. Having long benefited from a rules-based world order, free trade, and the promotion of democracy, the U.S. abruptly withdrew from key international commitments and agreements. The government also reassessed its role in global development by suspending the activities of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), effectively cutting off vital humanitarian and development assistance. This decision sent shockwaves across the international community.
The “America First” trade policy, championed by the Trump Administration, is expected to have profound global repercussions, described by experts as “nothing short of seismic.” Already, trade wars stemming from this policy are causing ripple effects worldwide, dismantling the international order and raising doubts about the U.S.’s leadership role on the global stage.
Furthermore, the U.S.’s retreat from multilateral organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and its distancing from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have shifted its international image from that of a global enforcer to, in some views, an obstructionist force. This withdrawal has forced nations that once relied heavily on U.S. aid to reconsider their development strategies and seek alternative, innovative pathways forward.
With the U.S. stepping back from its traditional role in shaping international development agendas, a leadership vacuum has emerged—one that, as the saying goes, nature abhors. Scholars and experts in international relations and political economy are already debating potential alternatives to fill this void. Could a new global leader emerge to stabilize the international system amid the fragmentation and fallout caused by Trump’s unilateralism and isolationist policies?
TRANSFORMATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
Many scholars argue that the unintended consequence of the “America First” policy will be a shift towards a multipolar world order. For the first time in decades, American foreign policy is turning inward, prioritizing domestic interests over global influence. The result has been an increase in trade wars and aggressive international policies, which threaten not only global stability but also U.S. interests.
This shift has prompted frustration among allies, who see American policies as undermining the global economic and security architecture. The U.S. appears to be eroding its own influence by withdrawing from international agreements and prioritizing short-term national gains over long-term global stability. Trump’s return to office, dubbed “Trump 2.0,” has intensified concerns that the U.S. will continue to pursue transactional foreign policies that ignore multilateral cooperation.
This transformation is evident in the assertiveness of other global powers such as China, Russia, India, Turkey, Qatar, Iran, Brazil, and South Korea. These nations are increasingly asserting themselves on the global stage, stepping into the void left by the U.S. Rather than a single hegemonic power dictating global norms, a multipolar order is emerging, where different nations and regional blocs wield influence through both soft and hard power strategies.
THE SEARCH FOR A GLOBAL ALTERNATIVE
The disruption of the international system, largely driven by the U.S., has strengthened calls for a credible alternative global order. One prominent contender is China, which has actively promoted its Global Development Initiative (GDI) as a framework for sustainable international cooperation. Introduced by President Xi Jinping in 2021, the GDI emphasizes multilateral collaboration to achieve inclusive growth and sustainable development. At the time of its inception, few predicted that U.S. economic nationalism would accelerate the search for alternative global leadership.
The GDI prioritizes eight key areas: poverty reduction, food security, pandemic response and vaccines, financing for development, climate change and green development, industrialization, the digital economy, and connectivity. These priorities closely align with the African Union’s Agenda 2063 and provide a foundation for a new, more cooperative international approach.
Another key initiative is the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), which offers a platform for African nations to reduce their dependence on the U.S. by increasing intra-continental trade. Currently, Africa trades only about 15% of its goods and services within the continent, but AfCFTA has the potential to significantly increase this percentage. For this to happen, African governments must commit to strengthening regional trade and industrialization efforts. A focus on self-sufficiency and regional economic integration would help shield African economies from the unpredictability of U.S. trade policies.
The U.S.’s unilateral decisions, including aid cuts and tariff impositions, have already had negative consequences for African nations, particularly in health, trade, and development sectors. To mitigate these effects, Africa must consider closer ties with emerging global powers, particularly through engagement with BRICS, the GDI, and other multilateral initiatives. By asserting itself as an active participant in shaping the new world order, Africa can strengthen its economic resilience and secure a more sustainable future.
CONCLUSION
The ongoing fragmentation of the international order, driven largely by U.S. policy shifts, presents both challenges and opportunities for global governance. While America’s retreat from multilateralism has created instability, it has also paved the way for new leadership structures to emerge. The rise of alternative frameworks such as the GDI, BRICS, and AfCFTA suggests that a multipolar world is taking shape, with diverse actors contributing to global stability and development.
As the world navigates this transition, it remains to be seen whether a new global leader will emerge or if a truly multilateral system will take hold. What is clear, however, is that the traditional model of American-led global governance is being fundamentally reshaped—and the world must adapt accordingly.
Oboshi Agyeno PhD. Head: National Conflict Early Warning and Early Response System, Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Abuja. oboshiagyeno@ipcr.gov.ng jacobya007@yahoo.com
