Uncertainty and unknown are the two words that describe how the new administration of Donald Trump will shape up its domestic and foreign policies. What is certain by now, though, is the crumbling basis of the belief in the integration of the global community.

It turns out that the idea of integration, however noble it may seem, is not favored by the people on the ground. In fact, it seems to be a commodity that can be easily dispensed with when it fails to deliver tangible benefits or reduces existing ones.

While so many people have preached integration of the global community through trade and alliance, at the end of the day the key issue in the minds of the ordinary people is whether any policy can bring bread today and whether their doorstep is safe from strangers today. Preaching long-term benefits turns out to be a hard sell to people who live hand to mouth.

Trump’s election is not just about a stunning, come-from-behind victory. Nor is it about the failure of polling institutions or doubts over TPP or military commitments or worries over declared protectionism. His election is a showcase example of the changing global tide: integration is in fact not the path that people prefer or are willing to take if their jobs and businesses are on the line.

Teh increasing popularity of this anti-integration platform has already been observed here and there, in Brexit and border closures in Europe. Trump’s election tells us that these are not just sporadic aberrations based on nationalist and populist movements. Rather it portrays a clear silhouette of the anti-integration tide in the world. Moving on this track, we will not have a “global community.” There is just a group of individual states eager to protect their own interests.

Enlightened people have lectured others on the benefit of integration and freer trade. After all, it is said, this is the right thing and this is how we all prosper. Indeed evidence abounds that as countries integrate people can enjoy access to a wider variety of goods and services at cheaper prices, ultimately ensuring a higher standard of living.

But we now know that people on the ground are impatient. They demand to see some tangible benefits of integration. They now say that they can’t simply wait until the benefits trickle down their way and that any immediate benefits are earmarked for big players like multinational corporations.

Looking forward, a main policy lesson that can be drawn from this development is that any idea of global integration can gain traction only if we can ensure that the gains from integration are more broadly and more promptly shared.

Integration of the global community has been the conceptual pillar that has shaped the post-WWII world. Unfortunately, recent developments have shown how vulnerable this pillar is when things go wrong.

And it has turned out to be more fragile previously believed. When countries like the United States tell other countries that shifting into reverse gear on integration is a viable option, it will be difficult for other countries to resist the temptation to jump on the bandwagon. We will soon see the spread of the new tide to other parts of the world, as we know that there are many people in those other parts who are angry at the establishment and at integration.

Trump virtually barked his punchline “you are fired” at the existing idea of global integration. Still there are many, including me, who believe in integration in the global community. Should this noble idea survive this trying moment, it will have to reflect the anger and dissatisfaction of the people on the ground.

Perhaps the pace of integration has been too fast, or perhaps the benefit has been too much focused on certain countries and certain groups in those countries. Still, after this major setback it will take a long time to recover the momentum of global integration.

By LeeJae-min

Lee Jae-min is a professor of law at Seoul National University. He can be reached at jaemin@snu.ac.kr. — Ed.