The IMF has gotten a lot of credit over the past year for standing up to Europe in the euro zone crisis, by publicly insisting that Greece’s European creditors should give the country more debt relief. The IMF’s stance on this issue has by and large been commendable, and goes some distance toward rectifying the Fund’s subservience to Europe earlier in the crisis, which inflicted considerable damage on the Fund’s reputation and exacerbated its governance problem.

However, one series of recent events in the crisis threatens to cause further harm to the Fund’s ability to fulfill its international responsibilities, in ways that have gotten little notice in the public debate. I am referring to the fact that Greece failed to pay some of its obligations to the Fund on time, and came within a whisker of defaulting on a much more massive scale in mid-July when marathon negotiations over the terms of a new Greek bailout nearly broke down. The IMF’s loans to Greece are by far the biggest it has ever extended to any single country, and this episode cast into unprecedented doubt the Fund’s previously unquestionable ability to recover the money it lends. This could well make it more difficult in the future for the IMF to raise money from member countries. If that happened, the world might be deprived of an institution with the capacity to serve as a crisis fighter and manager.

There were a few rays of hope for the WTO and the multilateral trading system this past year. About 50 countries agreed to expand and update the 1996 Information Technology Agreement, which lowers trade barriers for IT products; this year’s deal was the first WTO-sponsored pact in 18 years to lower tariffs. This was a salutary development showing that deals can be done in Geneva. The WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement, which was initially struck at the 2013 ministerial meeting in Bali, is back on track again after a U.S.-India deal removed a big obstacle; this too will help give a little boost of confidence to the WTO as an institution. These achievements shouldn’t be oversold—the Doha Round remains stuck, with little sign that it will start moving forward anytime soon. So in my opinion, the multilateral trading system remains in danger of eroding over the long run; the system badly needs to overhaul its rules to address new problems that have arisen since the organization was founded two decades ago. But just looking over the past year, at least things aren’t going in reverse. Perhaps the most significant recent development for trade policy is that President Obama won congressional approval for fast track “Trade Promotion Authority,” giving the administration the right to negotiate trade agreements without worrying that Congress will pick them apart with amendments. This will help restore U.S. leadership in the trade realm.

Although I realize my perspective is controversial, I think the successful conclusion of the TPP will pose a threat rather than a boon to the multilateral system. On the other hand, the TPP’s woes reflect the difficulties of conducting far-reaching trade negotiations. Another major regional trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, remains even less well advanced than the TPP.