Geopolitics
Global Cooperation in Retreat? Multilateralism Faces Its Toughest Test Yet
A decade after the SDGs and Paris Agreement peaked, multilateralism confronts financing gaps, climate setbacks, and geopolitical fractures threatening global progress.
Introduction: The Promise of 2015
September 2015 felt like the culmination of humanity’s aspirational instincts. In New York, world leaders adopted the Sustainable Development Goals—17 ambitious targets to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all by 2030. Weeks later in Paris, 196 parties forged the Paris Agreement, committing to hold global warming well below 2°C. The third pillar, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on Financing for Development, promised to bankroll this grand vision.
That year represented multilateralism’s apex—a rare moment when geopolitical rivals set aside differences to tackle existential threats collectively. A decade later, that consensus feels like ancient history.
Today, the architecture of global cooperation shows deep fissures. Climate targets drift further from reach, development financing falls catastrophically short, and geopolitical fragmentation undermines collective action. The question isn’t whether multilateralism faces challenges—it’s whether the system can survive its current stress test.
The Golden Age That Wasn’t Built to Last
When Global Unity Seemed Inevitable
The mid-2010s carried an optimism bordering on naïveté. The United Nations SDGs framework promised “no one left behind,” addressing everything from quality education (Goal 4) to climate action (Goal 13). The Paris Agreement’s bottom-up approach—where nations set their own emission reduction targets—seemed politically genius, accommodating diverse economic realities while maintaining collective ambition.
World Bank projections suggested extreme poverty could be eliminated by 2030. Renewable energy costs were plummeting. China’s Belt and Road Initiative promised infrastructure investments across developing nations. The International Monetary Fund reported global growth rebounding from the 2008 financial crisis.
Yet this golden age rested on fragile foundations: stable geopolitics, sustained economic growth, and unwavering political will. Within years, each assumption would crumble.
The Unraveling: Three Crises Converge
1. The Financing Chasm
The numbers tell a brutal story. Developing nations require between $2.5 trillion and $4.5 trillion annually to achieve the SDGs, according to recent UN Conference on Trade and Development estimates. Current financing? A fraction of that figure.
The COVID-19 pandemic obliterated fiscal space across the Global South. Debt servicing now consumes resources meant for hospitals, schools, and climate adaptation. The World Bank reports that 60% of low-income countries face debt distress or high debt vulnerability—up from 30% in 2015.
Promised climate finance remains unfulfilled. Wealthy nations committed $100 billion annually by 2020; they’ve yet to consistently meet that modest target. Meanwhile, actual climate adaptation needs exceed $300 billion yearly by 2030, per Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments.
2. Climate Targets Slip Away
The Paris Agreement aimed to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Current nationally determined contributions place the world on track for approximately 2.8°C of warming by century’s end—a trajectory toward catastrophic climate impacts.
Extreme weather events have intensified: record-breaking heatwaves, devastating floods, and unprecedented wildfires strain national budgets and displace millions. Yet fossil fuel subsidies reached $7 trillion globally in 2022, according to IMF analysis—undermining climate pledges with one hand while making them with the other.
The credibility gap widens. Corporate net-zero commitments often lack interim targets or transparent accounting. Developing nations, contributing least to historical emissions, face adaptation costs spiraling beyond their means while wealthy polluters debate incremental carbon pricing.
3. Geopolitical Fragmentation
The rules-based international order has fractured. US-China strategic competition overshadows cooperative initiatives. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shattered European security assumptions and redirected resources toward military buildups. Trade wars, technology decoupling, and supply chain nationalism replace the globalization consensus.
Multilateral institutions themselves face paralysis. The UN Security Council, hobbled by veto-wielding permanent members, struggles to address conflicts from Syria to Sudan. The World Trade Organization appellate body remains non-functional since 2019. Even the G20—once the crisis-response mechanism for global challenges—produces communiqués too diluted to drive meaningful action.
The Data Doesn’t Lie: SDGs Progress Report Card
Stark Realities Behind the Targets
A comprehensive UN SDGs progress assessment reveals troubling trends:
- Goal 1 (No Poverty): Progress reversed. Extreme poverty increased for the first time in a generation during the pandemic, affecting 70 million additional people.
- Goal 2 (Zero Hunger): Over 780 million people face chronic hunger—up from 613 million in 2019.
- Goal 13 (Climate Action): Only 15% of tracked targets are on course.
- Goal 17 (Partnerships): Official development assistance as a percentage of donor GNI remains below the 0.7% UN target for most wealthy nations.
The Economist Intelligence Unit projects that at current trajectories, fewer than 30% of SDG targets will be achieved by 2030. The world faces a “polycrisis”—overlapping emergencies that compound rather than offset each other.
Voices From the Fault Lines
What Policy Leaders Are Saying
UN Secretary-General António Guterres recently warned of a “Great Fracture,” where geopolitical rivals build separate technological, economic, and monetary systems. His call for an “SDG Stimulus” of $500 billion annually has gained rhetorical support but little concrete action.
Climate envoys from small island developing states speak bluntly: for nations like Tuvalu or the Maldives, the 1.5°C threshold isn’t symbolic—it’s existential. Rising seas threaten their very existence while multilateral forums offer platitudes.
Development economists point to structural inequities. As World Bank chief economist Indermit Gill notes, today’s international financial architecture reflects 1944’s Bretton Woods priorities, not 2025’s multipolar reality. Reforming institutions designed when many developing nations were still colonies proves politically impossible.
Is Multilateralism Beyond Repair?
Distinguishing Detour From Derailment
The current crisis doesn’t necessarily spell multilateralism’s demise—but it demands urgent reinvention.
Minilateralism offers one path forward: smaller coalitions of willing nations tackling specific challenges. The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance coordinates fossil fuel phaseouts among committed nations. The International Solar Alliance mobilizes renewable energy deployment across tropical countries. These initiatives bypass the consensus requirements that paralyze larger forums.
Alternative financing mechanisms are emerging. Debt-for-climate swaps, blue bonds, and innovative taxation proposals (digital services, financial transactions, billionaire wealth taxes) could unlock resources without relying solely on traditional development assistance.
Technology transfers accelerate independently of diplomatic channels. Renewable energy deployment in India, electric vehicle adoption in Indonesia, and mobile money systems across Africa demonstrate that development needn’t await global summits.
Yet these piecemeal solutions can’t replace comprehensive cooperation. Climate change, pandemic preparedness, and nuclear proliferation require collective action at scale. The question is whether political leadership exists to rebuild multilateral consensus before crises force more painful adjustments.
The Path Not Yet Taken
What Renewal Requires
Resurrecting effective multilateralism demands acknowledging uncomfortable truths:
- Power has shifted. Institutions must reflect today’s economic and demographic realities, granting emerging economies commensurate voice and representation.
- Trust has eroded. Rebuilding credibility requires wealthy nations fulfilling existing commitments before proposing new ones. Climate finance delivery, debt relief, and vaccine equity matter more than aspirational declarations.
- Urgency has intensified. The 2030 SDG deadline approaches rapidly. Incremental progress won’t suffice—transformative action at wartime speed is necessary.
- Sovereignty concerns are valid. Effective multilateralism respects national circumstances while maintaining collective standards. The Paris Agreement’s bottom-up architecture offers a model; the challenge is enforcement without coercion.
The upcoming UN Summit of the Future and COP30 climate talks in Brazil present opportunities for course correction. Whether leaders seize them depends on domestic politics, economic conditions, and sheer political will.
Conclusion: Retreat or Regroup?
A decade after multilateralism’s zenith, the experiment faces its sternest examination. The SDGs limp toward 2030 with most targets unmet. The Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C ambition slips further from grasp. Financing gaps yawn wider while geopolitical rivalries consume attention and resources.
Yet declaring multilateralism’s death would be premature. The alternative—uncoordinated national responses to global challenges—promises worse outcomes. Climate physics doesn’t negotiate. Pandemics ignore borders. Financial contagion spreads regardless of political preferences.
The infrastructure of cooperation remains intact, however strained. What’s missing is the political imagination to adapt it for a more fractured, multipolar era. The architecture of 2015 won’t suffice for 2025’s challenges—but neither will abandoning the project altogether.
The world stands at a crossroads. One path leads toward fragmented, transactional arrangements where short-term interests trump collective welfare. The other requires reinventing multilateralism for an age of strategic competition, ensuring it delivers tangible benefits quickly enough to maintain legitimacy.
History suggests humans cooperate most effectively when facing existential threats. Climate change, nuclear risks, and pandemic potential certainly qualify. Whether today’s generation of leaders rises to that challenge will determine not just multilateralism’s future, but humanity’s trajectory for decades ahead.
The question isn’t whether we can afford to cooperate. It’s whether we can afford not to.
Sources & Further Reading: