In this piece, Future Horizons Institute Director Claudia Melim-McLeod and Board Chair Reza Lahidji discuss the current crisis in the multilateral institutions that supports the international rules-based order, and the emergence of the BRICS as an advocate for multilateralism, in spite of the bloc's internal differences.

As we witness the unravelling of multilateralism in trade, security, and in the international rules-based order more broadly, it is important to remind ourselves of how the multilateral system came about, and what made countries with widely divergent agendas such as the United States and the Soviet Union adopt it in the wake of World War II.   The preamble of the United Nations Charter signed in June 1945 makes an eloquent case for collaboration through the organization as a general framework to manage international affairs:

“WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.”

The “international machinery” of the United Nations includes a number of organizations, funds, and programmes dedicated to addressing collective global matters from climate change to food security. Ironically, it is now being defunded by the United States, one of the main proponents of the UN, and the country that hosted the conference where the Charter was drafted and signed in 1945.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States has been the UN’s largest donor since its founding, covering over a quarter of its budget. A discussion on how these funds were used to promote US interests globally is beyond the scope of this piece, but it stands to reason that if something is not in your interest, you will not spend money on it for decades.  It is precisely the sharp shift in US interests that guides the weakening of the UN through budget cuts. Based on an Executive Order by President Trump in February this year calling for a review of international bodies to which the United States belongs, an assessment was made of UN organizations, followed by specific recommendations on which to defund, and why.

The reviewers grouped specialized UN funds, programmes, agencies and others in three ‘tiers’, as follows: “Tier 1 organizations contribute significantly to US interests. Tier 2 organizations may contribute to some US interests, but do not support major US policies or priorities. Organizations in Tier 3 tend to have mandates at odds with US policy, be irrelevant or harmful to US interests, or have managerial or political liabilities that impede positive contributions to US interests.”  Reviewers recommended cutting all funding to those in Tier 3, such as the Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), among others.  Justifications included unorthodox arguments such as having Palestine among the organization’s members, as UNFCCC or UNIDO do, or “the pursuit of the UN Sustainable Development Goals”, as UNDP.  Contributions to the United Nations on the other hand, should be maintained according to reviewers, under the justification that “the US should maintain its membership to protect US interests. It should use [the UN] Security Council veto to protect its interests and those of its allies” - a clear departure from the principles of multilateralism guiding of the UN Charter. [1]

Critics may point out that this has always been the case, and recent policy changes are just removing the selective application of higher ideals such as the defense of “freedom” as veneer of high moral ground when convenient. The world’s powers, in particular the larger Western countries, have often been the champions of the international regime; they have also regularly ignored some of its key principles, and even undermined these when required by their interests – more precisely by the interests underpinning the positions of their governments. History is filled with double standards guiding actions by the West - currently playing out in the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and in the climate emergency, to name but two tragic examples.

In fact, the current crisis in the international regime is in large part connected to the hostility, indifference, or selective defence by the larger Western countries of some of the core principles of the international regime, primarily respect for international law. This change of attitude towards international rules of the game is not exclusive to one country or one type of government. It has been developing for over two decades and coincides with various degrees of democratic backsliding in Western countries.

However, the core elements of the international regime - laws, institutions, and practices - are not the creation of the world’s powerful countries, nor their property. They belong to the world community.

For all these reasons, it is both fitting and fortunate that some countries from the Global South are willing to step up in defence of multilateralism, through the BRICS + or the expanded BRICS bloc. Originally consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the bloc expanded its membership once more in July 2025 and now includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

This is not to say that the BRICS are necessarily champions of international law, peace, and human rights - in some cases, quite the opposite, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine in particular stands out. But neither are they a group of autocracies united in hostility against the West, as is often portrayed in the media.  In spite of often being presented as an anti-Western bloc, a more nuanced look reveals that the BRICS are highly heterogeneous in significant respects, not least on their geopolitical stance. While China, Russia and Iran openly challenge U.S. dominance, others like Saudi Arabi and Egypt are traditional U.S. allies. In fact, Saudi Arabia and UAE are hosts to American military bases in their territory.  While some do not hold or hold heavily restricted elections, Brazil and South Africa are consolidated democracies. At the same time, others like India, Indonesia and Ethiopia have seen the integrity of their elections questioned in recent years.[2]

The point is that multilateralism is not about the promotion of one type of government. It is about agreeing on rules of coexistence, with self-determination as a cornerstone. And while the BRICS governments may be on polar opposites of the democracy spectrum,  they have one unifying principle: their commitment to multilateralism as a guiding principle for global governance, including calls to maintain but reform the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank to better reflect the realities of a multipolar world. This is clearly stated in the BRICS declaration at their annual summit, which this year was held in July in Brazil.

The Joint Declaration of the Summit addresses five main topics: 1) Strengthening Multilateralism and Reforming Global Governance, 2) Promoting International Peace, Security, and Stability, 3)Deepening International Cooperation in Economics, Trade, and Finance, 4) Combating Climate Change and Promoting Sustainable, Fair, and Inclusive Development, and 5) Boosting Partnerships for the Promotion of Human, Social, and Cultural Development.  The declaration also supported the United Nations’ ‘Pact for the Future’, including initiatives like the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration of Future Generations, which aim to modernize multilateral cooperation in areas such as digital governance and sustainability.  Additionally, the BRICS recently reaffirmed its support for a rules-based multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization. And recent unilateral tariffs by the United States have added new impetus to BRICS’ discussions on creating alternative currency to the US dollar for trade among members - which has in turn led the United States to threaten any country "aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS" with an additional 10% tariff.

As Eghosa E. Osaghae, Director-General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs put it, “at a time when global governance and multilateralism are losing relevance due largely to unilateral interventions and other deglobalizing tendencies, the BRICS is championing stronger, equitable, and inclusive multilateralism, which offers the greatest protection to the interests of poor and weaker states.”[3]  Whether the BRICS will be strong and united enough to push for a renewed version of multilateralism that can deliver for the Global South remains to be seen. But for the majority of the world’s population, the BRICS may at least present a renewed opportunity “to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples” – precisely as the UN Charter originally intended to do.

Claudia Melim-McLeod has twenty five years of international experience combining consulting, research, policy/programme management and advisory positions at the United Nations Department of Peace Operations, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UNREDD, the African Development Bank, the UN Economic Commission for Africa, Norad, KPMG, and Rainforest Foundation Norway. At Future Horizons Institute, her work focuses on the intersection of climate, nature, and business, to achieve positive economic, social, and environmental outcomes for people and planet. She is the author of several publications on governance, climate change, and sustainability.

Reza Lahidji is an economist by background and founding partner of Future Horizons A/S. In thirty years of career, Reza has provided advice to a large number of government agencies in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America and to international organisations such as the OECD, the World Bank, the IMF and UN agencies. In addition to his work at Future Horizons, Reza is currently an associated researcher with the Climate Economics Chair of Université Paris Dauphine (France).