Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_537244408-4-scaled

Why It's Important That Cities Are Becoming Major Players in International Affairs

Increasing inaction at the national level means that cities are playing larger role in internatioanal affairs than ever before.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

Delegations from nearly 200 countries concluded talks last Sunday on further curtailing emissions at the COP 25 climate summit in Madrid, Spain by pushing most decisions off until next year. Nation-states and the international arena owe much of their success on combatting climate change to this point — including the 2015 Paris Climate Accord — to the work of cities. Prior to the 2015 meeting, cities banded together across the globe to push for aggressive action on climate change and created the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. It was this group, arguably more than any other, that laid the groundwork for Paris and beyond.

The story of the activism of cities and other sub-national actors in the world of diplomacy and international affairs goes beyond climate change, though. The growth and international clout of cities and sub-state actors has been unparalleled in recent decades. With the end of the Cold War, a large portion of the global community lost one of its driving unifying threats — communism — and with it, the need to find common purpose, common ground, and common action. In the decades since, many urgent transnational issues have emerged as new organizing principles for international cooperation. Pragmatic mayors and their constituencies, who are used to getting things done, now seek a seat at the table in the international arena, forming networks that help shape new organizing principles for international cooperation on issues that affect us all like climate, health, transnational crime, and migration.

The Rise of the City

For millennia, cities formed the major building blocks of community, governance, and public affairs in response to the expanding trading systems that had evolved. Examples range from the ancient city-states of Athens and Rome; the original Silk Road; the complex Mayan and Inca empires in the Western Hemisphere; and the rise of Renaissance Italy. The power of individual cities in the realm of diplomacy and international affairs saw a steep decline over the course of recent centuries.

Now, the rise of the new city-state takes on renewed significance in international affairs. The pace of urbanization in recent decades makes understanding sub-national assertiveness and areas for collaboration all the more urgent. Over half of humanity lives in urban areas today, a number that will grow to two-thirds by 2050; and cities account for approximately 80 percent of global GDP. By mid-century, the number of people living in cities around the world will be higher than the entire global population of 1950.

Spurred by the financial engines of modern cities, states and provinces are wielding more and more economic heft. If California counted as a standalone fiscal entity, it would have been the world’s fifth-largest economy in 2018, wealthier than the United Kingdom, India, or France. California is home to 12 percent of America’s population, but “contributed 16 percent of the country’s job growth between 2012 and 2017” — and this growth relied on multiple sectors in two major urban areas — San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Recent nativist trends — a cultural and ethnic form of xenophobic nationalism — also drives the emergence of “global cities” and activist states, as more nativist national capitals and metropolitan areas may find themselves increasingly at odds with each other over globalization. As nativist leaders like President Trump question globalization’s benefit, deride the need for strong partnerships, and ridicule and seek to curtail immigration, cities do the opposite. These shifts, coupled with the wider set of challenges inherent to the evolving global landscape, create the context within which anti-nativist sub-national governments now operate. While always significant as economic or political power centers, sub-national actors around the world have begun once again to play a larger role in what happens beyond their own borders.

Networking to Push the Agenda

A number of developments have inspired cities and states to band together and take on a more activist role in matters of national and international policy formation. The most obvious is the sheer size and wealth of certain global cities now makes them, and their perspectives, relevant to many national and international policies.

This shift is taking place, in large part, as the U.S. National Intelligence Council makes clear, because “the number and complexity of issues beyond the scope of any one individual, community, or [nation] state to address is increasing — and doing so at a seemingly faster pace than decades ago.” Partisan gridlock and nativist tendencies that eschew multilateral cooperation in many nations add to this pressure, and can lead local governments to take matters into their own hands if they see higher governance structures as incapable of meeting today’s challenges. Reliance on international institutions to resolve these challenges seems less of an effective or efficient option.

Cities, meanwhile, have become more globally connected than ever before. “Cities,” according to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, “are actively forging links across borders, taking part in setting the international agenda, and shifting the landscape of urban politics from local to increasingly global.” Ivo Daalder, the council’s president, argues that “global cities…have the scope, ambition and clout to shape not just the world’s economy but also its ideas, its culture, its policies and its future. Big and connected, they transcend borders and disrupt international agendas.”

City networks perform a wide range of activities and focus on an expansive array of topics, including trade, best practices, global finance, and culture. They can also focus on interconnected transportation networks, technological linkages, and combating extremism. City networks also deal with issues more global and political in nature, issues that historically have been monopolized by nation-states; and city networks have found “ways to inject their perspectives and expertise into international forums, agendas, campaigns, and agreements.” In 2017, twenty-five global cities launched the U20, which “seeks to coordinate a joint position between mayors of the main cities of the G20 and other global urban centers to inform and enrich the discussions of national leaders at the 2018 G20 Summit” on urban-focused issues.

We Need to Harness the Power of Cities

Not all cities are created the same, and some will have an easier time than others at projecting their power on the global stage, but nation-states and the international arena must work with cities, and vice versa, to create a better future for all. A 2018 working group at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy concluded that cities and their networks are relevant international forces for the foreseeable future.

There are a number of ways in which all parties can better work together, but it begins by understanding that on issues such as global health, climate change, and migration, among others, many national and global-level interests can best be served at the local level or through interactions with cities, and can be done so peacefully. National governments, for their part, need to better understand that they have untapped resources within their own territorial boundaries that can provide newfound influence, power, and connections globally. Cities, meanwhile, would be wise to accept the ongoing reality that collaboration, rather than competition, with their national counterparts will likely provide the most efficient and successful ways to navigate the diplomatic landscape at the international level.


google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.