Mainstream media and policymakers try to imply that a relationship cannot be global unless it is multilateral at the same time. The United Nations, as the most prominent multilateralist, supports multilateralism by definition. Yet, many other examples surfaced after Donald Trump announced his bilateral ambitions. Modern Diplomacy, as one of the outspoken media outlets, calls the end of multilateralism the ultimate crisis of globalism.

This post will not only show that the claim is false, but also that it is intentionally misleading. 

Is global unification of rules necessary?

In autumn 2016, the European Union opened the CEFTA agreement and simultaneously signed the CETA trade agreement with Canada. NAFTA, the most notable US multilateral trade agreement, has been under discussion since 1998. In the heavily globalized world, from a trade perspective, it seems that multilateral agreements are indispensable. How could the global economy evolve if there were not to be a kind of global agreement on rules of origin, patent law, customs procedures, and so forth?

As for every self-evidence, there is a question for this one as well:

Is global unification of rules, laws, and cultures a prerequisite for free trade and, what is even more important, for a free man, a man that is unbridled in acting according to his interests and not in the interests of non-transparent collective bodies?

Let me begin with a clear answer: NO!

Globalism = Collectivism

First, let’s address the most obvious result of this trend. Higher unification (globalization) of rules necessarily results in the empowerment of supranational collective bodies that “take care” of a globalized one-culture, one-world. It is a path to the monoculture that was ideal for the communist regime, both in agriculture and political culture. “Workers around the world, unite under one communist ideology (culture)!”

The globalist movement is led not so much by corporations but by non-transparent collective bodies, such as the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the International Monetary Fund, and many others. They all executed the same ideology as Lenin and Stalin did in Soviet Russia. The problem, namely, is not socialism or capitalism behind Stalinism and economic globalism, but the ambition that both movements share: the transfer of sovereignty from a man to supranational, collective bodies.

Capitalism describes nothing

It is a fatal mistake to understand “capitalism” in itself as a guardian of individual freedoms. Capitalism, in itself, is nothing but a description of the exchange of goods among humans. It is, as such, universal and unavoidable, at least after the majority of individuals are economically free. But the way this exchange happens can be as different as possible. And the pattern should be evaluated based on individual freedoms. Even Stalin could not avoid exchanging goods on some capitalistic principles. China is also an example of a highly competitive capitalist centralized system. Sweden used to employ a form of social welfare capitalism. Arabic countries try to develop capitalism based on Sharia law and culture. Finding capitalism in a particular country or region tells us nothing about how its economy operates.

Towards a liberal economy

For us who share liberal values, the ideal would be a decentralized capitalism, like neurons in the brain or computers on the World Wide Web. Why? Because decentralized capitalism is closest to the natural state described by Darwin. Evolution by natural selection is the process by which organisms change over time. The evolution of memes by natural selection is how cultures evolve. The evolution of the exchange of goods by natural selection is how economies grow. There is no algorithm behind it, as Stuart Kauffman reconfirmed in his latest book, A World Beyond Physics (2019). There is no central agent that coordinates or governs the natural economy. 

Individual agents that are not governed by a central authority act according to evolutionary randomness, which is in the best interest of each individual. It is through the complexity of such selfishness that sustainable nature (economy, culture, society) develops, or better: emerges from.

It is thus wholly wrong to assume that one-world ideology would be in the interest of corporations. One should not confuse the present state in which, for apparent reasons, corporations try to take advantage of multinational bodies and countries that they depend on. There they find sugars, and for that reason, they hunt for them. The sugars produced by multilateral and national bodies are mixed with heroin, and become visible only when it is already too late.

But then, how could we, as independent individuals or commercial entities, act on the global plane without »the help« of any central authority?

If I go to the woods, I have to dress differently than if I go to the theatre. Globalistic movements aim to blend these two cultures into a multicultural, forest-like theatre culture. Sorry, guys, it doesn’t go that way. Companies can adapt to significantly different cultures around the globe. One global culture of trade is not a prerequisite for global trade. If I want, I can have different strategies for India, the USA, and Iran. Even more, it gives great pleasure to experience diversity not only in food and tourism, but also in business.

Homonism

So the answer to the question of how is quite simple: behave normally. Analyze the situation. Already, an elementary stakeholder analysis will tell you the rules and behaviours of the market you try to deal with. Should the market reject you on protectionist grounds, customers on that market will lose, not you. If all markets were to open themselves, that would not mean they would equalize under the same standard, but only that they would accept diversity, benefit from it, and remain unique, distinguished from others in all respects – but in freedom.

That is why I coined the word “homonism” as a brand name for a state of highest freedom of individuals that includes the highest responsibility to the separation and preservation of different, separated cultures. Unfortunately, we can no longer use the word “humanism” since this brand was hijacked by multinational bodies to support multiculturalism and one-world ideology. We do not want one economy as much as we do not wish to have one animal that combines traits of all bacteria, fish, reptiles, and vertebrates, which would replace current diversity.

How to understand Trump’s tariffs in this context?

At this moment (April 2025), I can not answer this question. Why? It is not yet clear whether Trump started the tariff war for economic reasons or because he jumped from the multilateralism of previous US governments to bilateralism. We know that tariff wars directly contradict a liberal economy. Yet, if he plans to replace multilateral agreements with bilateral ones, that might evolve into a more liberal global environment. Let us see how this issue resolves over time.