Gordon Brown: Most people still believe in multilateral cooperation

Nationalists and populists may often speak the loudest in today's political discourse, but that does not make them representative, writes Gordon Brown

Support for international cooperation such as United Nations Peacekeeping missions is at 57% in Europe. 

With conflicts raging in some 50 countries, tariff wars becoming the new (abnormal) norm, and global economic growth falling to its slowest pace in generations, there seems to be little to cheer about as we enter 2026. The only certainty is that we are living with mounting uncertainty.

Underlying the tensions and turmoil of our times are three unmistakable shifts that are creating a new but still unsettled terrain: from a unipolar world to a multipolar one; from a rules-based order to a power-based one; and from a politics informed by economic openness to one that insists on protectionism, mercantilism, and industrial policies that emphasise domestic security. Politics is now driving economics, rather than vice versa.

There are different views about how the world will change in 2026 and beyond. As we move away from the certainties of a unipolar world, will we see a return to great-power competition and to spheres of influence, the emergence of a “one world, two systems” arrangement dominated by China and the United States, or simply a period of chaotic disorder?

What is clear is that every pillar of the world order we have known since World War II’s end is crumbling

 This includes adherence to the rule of law, human rights, and democracy (there are now 91 autocracies in the world, but only 88 democracies), as well as to multilateral cooperation, humanitarian aid, and environmental stewardship.

These seismic shifts have produced an aggressive, increasingly authoritarian form of nationalism that has replaced neoliberalism as the dominant ideology of our times. So, from the perspective of the end of 2025, it looks as if this decade will be remembered for a global pandemic, the first war waged by a great power in Europe since WWII, Middle East carnage, a deepening climate crisis, and disorder.

But recall that in 1941 — when the rise of fascism had plunged the world into even more widespread war and despair — something unexpected happened. America and Britain set out the principles that would guide a new postwar world order. More than two dozen other countries soon pledged support for the Atlantic Charter, which established the framework for the birth of the United Nations, the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Marshall Plan. Could something similar happen now?

In a fractured world, it is no surprise that electorates are growing more concerned about their day-to-day survival and security. But what is striking is that, despite this turn, they also understand that broader international dynamics are increasingly impinging on their lives. They are far more aware than ever of the connection between what is happening in their local communities and what is happening globally, and a majority believe that, under the right conditions, helping others is a reliable way to help oneself.

Practical realities

These and other insights can be found in a recent Focaldata survey, that polled around 36,000 adults across 34 countries. Of course, given the daily headlines since January, particularly the ongoing coverage of trade wars, it is understandable that two-thirds of respondents recognise how their lives are being affected by decisions made elsewhere. Equally, since it has been only almost three years since the pandemic ended, around 77% are still attuned to what is happening in global health. But clear majorities are also aware of the consequences for them of climate change (58%, rising to 63% among younger respondents) and disruptions to food supplies (55%).

These sentiments do not necessarily arise from some starry-eyed cosmopolitan idealism; rather, they reflect practical realities. What matters most to people is whether their fundamental needs are being met. They know that cooperation can offer security, such as in the provision of food and water (the top priority for 40% of respondents), or in mitigating poverty and inequality (selected by 38%, with majority support in Sub-Saharan Africa). They also know that it is necessary to protect human rights (37%), support employment (36%), and promote health and effective responses to climate change (which are top priorities in the Global South, especially in Asia).

While some commentators have described today’s world as being divided between localists and globalists, most of the public does not see it this way. The majority favours cooperation on global challenges

Support for cooperation in pursuing mutual prosperity, peace, and stability is strongest in Sub-Saharan Africa (68%) and in East and South Asia (64%), where these objectives are most at risk. By contrast, in Northern Europe — where populist nationalism has taken far-right parties to the top of many opinion polls — only 57% report that they are prepared to sacrifice national interests to tap the benefits of global cooperation.

But even in President Donald Trump’s America, as in European countries where populist nationalist parties lead opinion polls, more people lean toward working with other countries than toward “going it alone.” Only hardline nationalists hold the zero-sum view that success for them and their country must come at the expense of others. This cohort represents just 16% of the global population, though 25% of Americans.

Committed internationalists — the 21% who are what the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah calls “rooted cosmopolitans” — view cross-border cooperation through open trade as a positive-sum game. The vast majority are somewhere in between – neither narrow, inward-looking nationalists nor all-in cosmopolitans. They are patriotic, but they don’t see themselves as part of a never-ending struggle between “us” and “them.” One cohort, representing 22%, supports humanitarian action to relieve suffering and is prepared to act out of altruism, supporting emergency aid in disaster zones. They are what we might call “good-cause” multilateralists who do feel others’ pain and believe in something bigger than themselves.

A second group, also representing 22% of the total, comprises pragmatic multilateralists who want to know that any taxes paid out for international development will be spent well. Leaders must show results; otherwise, cooperation will be deemed a failure and rejected. 

A third group (representing 21%) comprises self-interested multilateralists who will endorse cooperation if they can see that it benefits them and their communities – whether it be through guaranteeing food or peace and security.

Global cooperation

The implication is that cooperation must be rooted in everyday life. If political leaders demonstrate that global cooperation delivers for people on the ground, people will back multilateral efforts. But the process cannot begin at the global level and work down to the local. Rather, it must begin with people asking what global events mean for their everyday lives.

Day-to-day hardships — unaffordable essentials, at-risk jobs, poor health, food insecurity, threats to personal safety — are defining the public agenda everywhere. If international cooperation fails to ameliorate these burdens, support for it will evaporate.

Multilateral cooperation can be revived even without blanket endorsement of multilateral institutions.

But, as stated above, the situation is fragile. Support for multilateral cooperation could fade overnight if people come to see such cooperation as a waste of scarce resources. We need visible “wins” that make everyday life better or safer. 

Underpinning this is the need for a new, global, values-based order which, in the manner of the Atlantic Charter, sets out international and domestic goals. 

And as we search for a way through today’s turbulence, one signal from the latest polling stands out. Despite the noise of conflict and rivalry, people are not asking for withdrawal; they are asking for hope. 

• Gordon Brown, a former prime minister of the United Kingdom, is UN Special Envoy for Global Education and World Health Organisation Ambassador for Global Health Financing. Project Syndicate