Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
Since the conclusion of the Cold War, the United States has grappled with a pivotal foreign policy dichotomy: whether to maintain its role as the principal architect and guarantor of the liberal international order or to recalibrate its global posture in response to the emergent multipolarity of the international system. This strategic tension was notably intensified during the administration of President Donald J. Trump, policies aremarked by protectionist tariffs reminiscent of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930), reductions in foreign aid, disregard for long-standing allies and provocative territorial propositions served not so much as a departure from historical trends as the culmination of latent structural transformations in U.S. grand strategy.Trump’s foreign policy direction, while dramatic, functioned primarily as an accelerant to pre-existing currents rather than a novel strategic formulation. The shift toward unilateralism is driven by a combination of strategic fatigue, structural economic transformations, domestic political pressures and evolving global power dynamics. This trajectory necessitates a critical inquiry: not whether the United States will continue to act unilaterally but the manner and strategic rationale by which such behavior unfolds.
The imperatives underpinning this strategic shift are no longer purely theoretical. Understanding their causes is essential for crafting a coherent and sustainable policy framework. Left unmoderated, the unilateral turn threatens to destabilize the global order and diminish the foundational pillars of U.S. hegemony. Yet, if properly channeled, these forces may offer the potential for a recalibrated foreign policy that maintains key liberal principles while jettisoning the overextensions associated with liberal internationalism.Despite recurring narratives of American decline, the United States retains substantial structural advantages. Its consumer market rivals the aggregate demand of the eurozone and China and it dominates the international financial system: over half of global trade and approximately 90 percent of international financial transactions are denominated in U.S. dollars. This economic centrality underpins Washington’s capacity to enforce punitive sanctions. Moreover, the U.S. economy is relatively insulated from global economic disruptions, with exports constituting only 11 percent of its GDP substantially lower than the global average.
The technological and financial sectors also underscore U.S. preeminence, with American firms capturing a dominant share of global venture capital and profits in strategic industries such as semiconductors, aerospace and biotechnology. Though the United States depends on China for certain industrial inputs (e.g., base chemicals, rare earths and generic pharmaceuticals), the asymmetry of dependence strongly favors Washington, particularly in high-end technologies and energy security.Militarily, the United States possesses unparalleled global reach, capable of projecting force across vast distances. It maintains defense agreements with approximately 70 nations, encompassing a third of global economic output and a fifth of the world’s population. This extensive network of alliances, intelligence cooperation and logistical superiority provides Washington with the strategic flexibility to reshape or even disengage from international norms and frameworks
Conversely, a recalibrated approach anchored in selective engagement could permit Washington to shed the unsustainable burdens of liberal hegemony while preserving the foundational strengths of a liberal order rooted in openness, rules-based governance and strategic alliances.Despite recurrent narratives of relative decline, the United States continues to wield significant economic and strategic power. Its consumer market rivals the aggregate scale of China and the Eurozone and it retains disproportionate influence over the global financial system: approximately half of international trade and the vast majority of cross-border financial transactions are denominated in U.S. dollars and routed through American financial institutions, facilitating the use of sanctions as a geopolitical tool. Moreover, the American economy remains relatively insulated from global trade fluctuations, with exports constituting only 11 percent of its GDP, primarily within the North American region. In key sectors such as venture capital, energy, food production and advanced technologiesincluding semiconductors, aerospace and biotechnology U.S. dominance remains unparalleled, far exceeding that of its strategic competitors.
While the U.S. is reliant on China for industrial base components, the asymmetry is more consequential for Beijing, which remains dependent on Western markets, technological ecosystems and food and energy imports. Militarily, the United States is unique in its capacity to project power across vast distances. It sustains security commitments with over 70 nations, encompassing a fifth of the global population and a third of global economic output, thereby reinforcing its strategic leverage over global security and rule-setting processes.The imperative for a unilateral turn is further compounded by a growing disillusionment with the legacy institutions of the liberal international order. Originally designed to confront the ideological and geopolitical threats posed by Soviet communism and post-war instability, the liberal order succeeded in securing Western prosperity and political liberalism. However, its foundational rationale has become obsolete. Nations that once relied on U.S. security guarantees such as Germany, Japan, Canada andvarious Western European states have reduced their defense expenditures, expanded welfare programs and pursued economic entanglements with China and Russia, rendering them ill-prepared to contribute meaningfully to global stability.
Ironically, efforts to integrate former adversaries into the liberal order have inadvertently empowered them. Russia and China have exploited the openness of Western institutions to further revisionist agendas, engaging in coercive diplomacy, territorial aggression and economic statecraft. Russia leverages financial networks for illicit capital flows, energy as a tool of geopolitical coercion and disinformation to erode democratic resilience. China, for its part, has employed massive industrial subsidies to dominate strategic manufacturing sectors and used market access as leverage to pressure adversaries. It has weaponized its participation in global institutions to subvert liberal norms, turning the openness of the liberal order into a vector for strategic subversion.Simultaneously, globalization has fragmented authority within international institutions, producing gridlock and weakening U.S. influence. The proliferation of sovereign actors since the mid-twentieth century has diffused power within forums like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, often to the detriment of coherent, U.S.-led global governance. Domestically, the economic consequences of globalization have been deeply uneven. Industrial decline, job losses in manufacturing sectors and regional economic disparities have engendered profound socio-political consequences, including rising social distress and growing support for populist and protectionist policies. Electoral mechanisms that amplify rural and deindustrialized constituencies have further entrenched these preferences in national policymaking.
Two transformative forces—demographic change and automation—are reshaping the global strategic landscape and accelerating the U.S. shift toward unilateralism. Demographic contractions across Eurasia, coupled with an aging workforce and declining support ratios, are weakening traditional great powers. In contrast, the United States is projected to maintain a growing prime-age workforce throughout the 21st century. At the same time, automation is diminishing the strategic necessity of foreign labor, energy imports and overseas military installations. This asymmetry—between rising U.S. self-sufficiency and global disorder reinforces Washington’s incentive to disengage from costly entanglements and prioritize autonomous action.
The United States’ capacity for unilateralism is not merely a reflection of ideological shift or political leadership, but the manifestation of enduring structural advantages and strategic recalculations in response to a changing global environment. Whether this trend will result in a sustainable recalibration of global order or exacerbate international instability will depend on how this power is exercised and the normative frameworks that guide its application.
