Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

US President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum on Wednesday directing the US to withdraw from 66 United Nations and international organizations. Washington's argument is that these organizations, conventions, and treaties "are contrary to the interests of the US."

As a matter of fact, the raison d'être of international and multilateral organizations lies in their commitment to safeguarding the shared interests of all member states, rather than serving the selfish interests of any single country. "The US decision to withdraw reflects a policy orientation that prioritizes whether multilateral mechanisms are 'useful to the US' and whether they serve the 'America First' agenda. This embodies a form of 'conditional multilateralism' or 'transactional multilateralism,'" Sun Chenghao, a research fellow at Tsinghua University's Center for International Security and Strategy, told the Global Times.

Under this mindset, multilateralism is no longer treated as a responsibility or obligation, but as something to be engaged in selectively and conditionally. Mechanisms that are seen as constraining US' freedom of action, increasing fiscal or political costs, or failing to generate immediate domestic political returns are more likely to be cut, abandoned, or marginalized. By contrast, in areas such as security, technology and sanctions coordination - where multilateral frameworks have clear instrumental value for Washington - the US continues to retain or even strengthen multilateral or "mini-lateral" arrangements, while taking it for granted that allies should contribute funding and resources.

"Multilateral mechanisms are no longer viewed as platforms for the long-term provision and joint maintenance of global public goods, but rather as policy tools that can be picked up or discarded at will based on cost-benefit calculations, political payoffs and strategic needs. This approach fundamentally weakens the role of multilateral institutions as stable providers of public goods," Sun said.

Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times that US' behavior resembles a vehicle that believes it can speed along at 500 kilometers per hour, refusing to obey traffic rules that apply to everyone else, and recklessly accelerating down a road that violates international law and the basic norms of international relations. From Washington's crude interference in Venezuela's oil affairs to its repeated threats against Greenland, a territory of Denmark, its pursuit of benefits without responsibility - and rejection of rules-based constraints - externalizes the costs of hegemony onto the rest of the world, treating the international system as a "menu of entitlements" to be taken or discarded as needed.

The danger of this logic lies in its steady push toward the "jungle-ization" of the international system - one governed not by rules and consultation, but by power and coercion. In the short term, the US may appear to reap immediate gains by exiting rules and shirking responsibilities at near-zero cost. Over the medium to long term, however, such regressive and systemic damage to established norms will return in the form of greater uncertainty, more frequent conflicts and deeper disorder - inevitably rebounding against the US itself.

Thousands of years of human political and governance experiences have shown that cooperation is not a moral ornament, but the most efficient and least costly long-term choice. The current international landscape has once again proven that only by ensuring the effective operation of the multilateral system can we prevent the spread of the law of the jungle and keep the international order from being dominated by the logic that "might makes right and force represents justice." This is what the vast majority of countries in the world, especially small and weak ones, need most at present.

Against this backdrop, the reason major powers must shoulder international responsibilities is straightforward: their actions generate systemic spillover effects. Responsibility is neither charity nor waste; it is an investment in long-term self-interest. China's commitment to multilateralism - through participation in UN peacekeeping operations and the proposal of the Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative, Global Civilization Initiative and Global Governance Initiative - stems from a clear understanding of how the world works: stable rules produce lasting returns, and predictable order creates space for development.

As a major power, the US is demonstrating what selfishness and a lack of responsibility look like. Treating international responsibility as optional and rules as a buffet will only lead to fragmentation, erosion of trust and spillover risks. For its own sake and for global stability, the US must retain a clear understanding of the value of responsibility, rules and cooperation - and shoulder at least the most basic obligations expected of a major power.