Singapore’s former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien Loong recently warned that the world may be heading toward a “World-Minus-One” scenario in trade—a global system operating largely without the United States as a constructive participant.
The United States remains the world’s largest single-country importer, taking in about 13.2% of global goods imports—USD 3.3 trillion in 2024—and exporting 8.3% of goods, or USD 2.1 trillion. In total, it accounts for roughly 21.5% of world trade. China, by comparison, accounts for around 12.5–13%.
But Washington’s increasingly unilateral trade policies—tariffs, sanctions, and the weaponization of its market power—risk undermining this role. Trump’s renewed tariffs are likely to shrink America’s trade footprint and force countries to search for alternative markets. For many exporters, the U.S. market is still critical, but overreliance on it has become a strategic vulnerability.
This reality opens the door to a new idea: the creation of a Global Goods Clearing House, a first step toward operationalizing the “World-Minus-One” trade concept.
A Blueprint for a New Trade Mechanism
This clearing house could begin with China and a coalition of willing partners: ASEAN members, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, a Central Asian economy, and a key Middle Eastern country. Its purpose would be straightforward: match imports and exports among participants to reduce friction, diversify market access, and shield members from politically motivated trade disruptions.
To limit dependence on any single currency, settlements could be conducted in a multi-currency basket:
-
USD: 25%
-
RMB: 25%
-
SGD: 15%
-
JPY: 20%
-
EUR: 15%
Interestingly, U.S. exporters and importers could still join on neutral terms, ensuring that trade flows remain open. Bilateral trade with the U.S. would continue under existing protocols, but members would gain a collective safety net for the growing share of commerce outside America’s influence.
Why the World May Need It
A global clearing house would serve three critical purposes.
First, it would reduce the world’s vulnerability to trade shocks originating from Washington. Tariffs, sanctions, and supply chain restrictions increasingly reverberate across the globe. A mechanism to reroute and settle trade outside U.S.-centric channels could dampen the impact.
Second, it would encourage gradual de-dollarization without abrupt disruption. By allowing a multi-currency settlement system, the clearing house would offer businesses an alternative path while maintaining some use of the USD for stability.
Third, it could accelerate the shift toward a multipolar trading order. In a “World-Minus-One” reality, countries would rely more on each other, spurring new trade corridors and partnerships rather than waiting for the U.S. market to remain open.
Can a “World-Minus-One” System Work?
Skeptics point to formidable obstacles. The U.S. dollar still dominates over 80% of international settlements. Many potential partners—especially in Southeast Asia—remain security allies of the U.S., which makes open participation politically sensitive. Building a credible clearing house would require strong governance, transparency, and risk management to win trust in global markets.
Yet history suggests that alternatives emerge when the dominant player overplays its hand. The Belt and Road Initiative, the BRICS New Development Bank, and mega-regional trade agreements like RCEP all reflect a gradual shift toward trade diversification and strategic hedging.
If Washington continues to weaponize its market power, the incentive for a World-Minus-One clearing system will only grow. The world cannot replace the U.S. overnight, but it can prepare a safety net for the day when global trade needs to function without its traditional anchor.
In the end, the question is no longer whether the world can imagine such a system—it is whether its major economies have the political courage and economic vision to make it real.
End
