Today, an event has occurred that will change the global geopolitical balance. President Donald J. Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from several United Nations institutions, such as the WHO, the UN Human Rights Council, UNESCO, and UNRWA, marks a turning point in the struggle between globalism and national sovereignty. The United States has decided to prioritize its national interests over international bureaucracy, raising the question of whether other allied countries will follow suit.
Far from being guarantors of international balance, structures like the UN Human Rights Council have proven to be instruments of political pressure and ideological bias. Countries with histories of fundamental rights violations occupy seats in these bodies and present themselves as judges of Western democracy. This situation raises doubts about the effectiveness of continuing to finance organizations that contribute to perpetuating conflicts rather than promoting global stability.
The UN and its agencies have been criticized for being complicit in inaction against dictatorships such as those in Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba, while interfering in the internal affairs of legitimate democracies. The U.S. withdrawal is seen as a signal that the institutional architecture created in the post-war era is in question and may not endure indefinitely.
The WHO, for its part, has been pointed out as a politicized body that has prioritized the interests of great powers over ensuring global health. The use of UNRWA resources by terrorist groups and its alleged involvement in the indirect financing of extremism in the region have been denounced.
In Latin America, it has been observed how these institutions operate with specific ideological agendas, sometimes to the detriment of local economies and sovereignties. The U.S. withdrawal poses a challenge to the international community, which must decide whether to remain in obsolete structures or take control of its own destiny in a new geopolitical scenario.
