Qamar Bashir
Has the United States divorced the world, or has the world finally decided to divorce the United States? This question has acquired extraordinary significance as foreign ministers of the world’s leading economies gather in Atlanta under theAmerican presidency of the G20. A gathering intended to demonstrate international cooperation has instead exposed the growing distance between Washington and the very nations whose confidence, partnership and collective wisdom once sustained American global leadership.
The G20 was established in 1999 following the Asian financial crisis to protect international financial stability, coordinate economic policies and prevent national crises from becoming global catastrophes. Elevated to leaders’ level in 2008, it represented approximately 85 percent of global economic output, three-quarters of international trade and two-thirds of humanity. Its fundamental philosophy is straightforward: no major economy can prosper indefinitely by destabilizing others. Yet the United States, entrusted with hosting this year’s deliberations, increasingly appears to be pursuing policies fundamentally opposed to that philosophy.
At the Atlanta meeting, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned of interconnected economic and geopolitical crises threatening energy supplies, food security, international trade, supply chains and freedom of navigation. He appealed for collective action, acknowledging that national interests do not always coincide but cooperation remains indispensable. His words were appropriate, even compelling. The contradiction, however, was impossible to ignore: many of the disruptions he identified have been aggravated by the unilateral decisions, economic coercion and military policies of the very administration he represents.
The exclusion of South Africa from American-hosted G20 proceedings illustrates this contradiction. South Africa is not an occasional guest but a founding member, representing a continent whose development challenges deserve international attention. President Donald Trump’s confrontation with Pretoria, fueled by political grievances, disagreements over international alignments and disputes surrounding the previous G20 presidency, has transformed a multilateral institution into an instrument of bilateral punishment. A host may organize a conference, but it should not presume the authority to determine which permanent members deserve participation.
The conflict involving Iran presents an even more consequential contradiction. Washington speaks of protecting freedom of navigation while its military confrontation with Tehran has intensified insecurity around the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption normally passes. Disruption of this strategic waterway threatens energy markets, shipping insurance, industrial production and household budgets across continents. Oil-price surges toward $120 a barrel, against earlier levels around $60, illustrate the potential magnitude of the economic shock.The consequences extend far beyond the countries participating directly in the confrontation.
The American sanctions regime further undermines the economic stability the G20 was created to defend. Primary and secondary sanctions targeting governments, banks, corporations, shipping networks and individuals have increasingly transformed access to the dollar-based financial system into an instrument of geopolitical pressure. Sanctions againstInternational Criminal Court officials have also raised disturbing questions about Washington’s willingness to tolerate international institutions when their decisions challenge American preferences. Whatever their stated justification, such measures can produce uncertainty and collateral economic damage extending well beyond their intended targets.
Trump’s tariff policies have introduced another layer of uncertainty into international commerce. By imposing or threatening sweeping duties against major trading partners, including fellow G20 economies, Washington has weakened confidence in predictable trade rules. The administration argues that tariffs protect American industries, correct unfair practices and restore manufacturing. Nevertheless, when the world’s largest economy employs market access as a bargaining weapon, other nations retaliate, investment decisions become uncertain and the cooperative economic framework begins to fracture.
The pattern extends beyond economics. Trump’s repeated suggestions concerning Greenland, his rhetoric about Canada becoming America’s fifty-first state, pressure on Cuba and confrontation with Venezuela have unsettled perceptions ofAmerican respect for national sovereignty. His administration’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement has further weakened international confidence in Washington’s willingness to honor long-term collective commitments. These decisions reinforce the impression that international agreements remain acceptable to Washington only while they accommodate its immediate political preferences.
Perhaps nowhere is the erosion of confidence more visible than in Europe. America’s changing approach toward Russia’s war against Ukraine has unsettled governments that previously regarded Washington as the indispensable guarantor ofEuropean security. European leaders face the uncomfortable prospect of defending Ukraine while simultaneously questioning the reliability of American commitments. NATO remains a powerful military alliance, but its political cohesion cannot remain unaffected when its leading member introduces uncertainty into the strategic calculations of its closest partners.
The cancellation of the traditional G20 family photograph in Atlanta was therefore more than a diplomatic embarrassment. European representatives, joined by objections from Australia and Canada, refused to appear alongside Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The photograph was abandoned, exposing the inability of major powers to demonstrate even symbolic unity. Russia remains uncompromising on Ukraine, while Western governments reject normalization without meaningful progress toward peace. The incident illustrates how profoundly fractured the international diplomatic environment has become.
Japan and other longstanding American partners also face increasingly complicated strategic choices. Questions surrounding military deployments, economic dependence, regional security and relations with China demonstrate that alliance does not automatically mean unquestioning obedience. Across Asia, Europe, Africa and Latin America,governments are becoming more determined to preserve independent decision-making rather than subordinate every national interest to Washington’s geopolitical priorities.
The difficulty in producing a joint communiqué at Atlanta offers another warning. As the October 30–31 meeting continues, diplomats consider a comprehensive consensus statement unlikely. Yet the absence of consensus cannot be attributed exclusively to Washington: Russia’s war against Ukraine, China’s policies and disagreements among other members contribute significantly. Nevertheless, America’s position as host makes its own confrontational policies particularly consequential. The failure of collective diplomacy would symbolize not merely disagreement, but the weakening of the leadership traditionally expected from the United States.
The danger is that the G20 could follow NATO into a prolonged crisis of political confidence, not necessarily disappearing, but becoming progressively less capable of fulfilling its original mission. Countries may increasingly pursue bilateral, regional and alternative multilateral arrangements where decisions can be reached without American pressure.Such developments would not automatically create a fairer international order, but they would diminish Washington’s capacity to shape global outcomes through consensus.
American leadership was never sustained by economic and military power alone. It also depended upon predictability, institutional credibility, diplomatic restraint and the conviction that cooperation with Washington offered mutual benefits.If the United States wishes to restore that leadership, it must reconsider the philosophy that treats allies as dependents,institutions as instruments and economic relationships as opportunities for coercion. It must return to consultation, respect for sovereignty, dependable commitments and rules applicable to powerful and weaker nations alike.
The Atlanta gathering has exposed a defining paradox: America is calling upon the world to repair an international order that its own policies have helped destabilize. The world has not entirely divorced the United States, nor can it realistically afford to do so. But the era when Washington could expect automatic acceptance of its leadership is fading. UnlessAmerica rediscovers the distinction between commanding obedience and earning respect, it may continue hosting international conferences while discovering that the world is increasingly unwilling to follow.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd), Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France , Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC . He is living in Michigan, USA
