Show Hide image

Can the UK save the United Nations from Donald Trump's cuts?

The UK could redirect funds from Brussels to the United Nations after Brexit. 

The US President Franklin Roosevelt was reportedly so excited to tell the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill about the name he had come up with for the World War II Allied power that he barged into Churchill’s room, where the Prime Minister was naked, just as he was coming out of the bath. Churchill, it is said, took the intrusion with aplomb, and agreed with Roosevelt’s suggested name: “United Nations.” This incident occurred a few weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, when Churchill was staying at the White House to plan the war effort with Roosevelt. During Churchill’s visit, he and Roosevelt drafted the “Declaration by United Nations”. Beyond the aim of defeating the enemy, the declaration committed the Allies to certain principles, such as respecting state sovereignty, promoting free trade, as well as defending human rights, justice and religious freedom. It formed the basis of the United Nations, as we know it. 

Unfortunately, Donald Trump, the current US President, is a UN sceptic. He plans to cut US funding to the UN by hundreds of millions of dollars. As a result, many of the UN’s activities, which benefit vulnerable communities globally, will be squeezed or halted. The UK should protect the UN, an organisation it helped conceive nearly 75 years ago, by providing it funds to offset the Trump cuts.

Already, Trump has unilaterally withdrawn aid from one UN institution, the family planning-focused UN Population Fund (of which the UK is the biggest donor), depriving it of $32.5m for 2017. His recently released 2018 budget proposal, which Congress will review over the next few months, seeks to eliminate funding to UN climate change programmes, as well as drastically cut funding to other UN programmes and peacekeeping operations. It is unlikely that Congress will resist many of these proposed cuts. 

Offsetting these cuts will require the UK to voluntarily fund UN programmes, in addition to its existing UN commitments. Currently, the UK is the UN’s sixth largest financial contributor (its contribution is based on set criteria applicable to all countries at the UN). Annually, it contributes nearly $115m to the regular UN budget and almost $500m to the peacekeeping budget. It also voluntarily funds many UN development and humanitarian programmes. The UK does not have to look far to find additional funding sources. It contributes over a billion pounds annually through the EU for foreign aid – less than a third of which the EU then donates to UN programmes. The UK should redirect most or all its contribution towards EU foreign aid to UN activities impacted by Trump’s cuts. 

As the UK will continue to contribute funding to Brussels, at least until its official exit from the EU in 2019, any reallocation of funds will take time, and may need to occur incrementally. Nevertheless, redirecting the funds will help the UK maintain its commitment of spending 0.7 per cent of its gross national income on foreign aid, which places it in an elite club of donor countries.

Besides the obvious benefit of ensuring that those in need of aid receive it, such increased funding to the UN would offer significant political benefits to the UK. It would counterbalance some of the loss of international prestige from Brexit. It would also win the UK more friends and increase its influence at the UN, which would translate into greater leverage. This could be used to push reforms to enhance the UN’s effectiveness in dealing with today’s unique challenges. Beyond continuing to press for improvements in UN management and Security Council reform, the UK could encourage the UN to better adapt to a world with rising non-state actors, including hackers and terrorists. These reforms would benefit the UK, as the UN serves as a force multiplier for the UK’s foreign policy, from Cyprus to Somalia. Small wonder that, in 2016, the UK was second only to the United States in terms of the number of Security Council resolutions for which it was the lead drafter.

Brexiteers also need not worry. Reallocating funds from the EU to the UN is not tantamount to replacing the EU with another comparable organisation. Unlike the EU, the UN is not a supranational organization requiring any ceding of sovereignty. It is an intergovernmental organisation that allows states to pool their resources to meet the challenges that no one state can face alone, thus enabling them to preserve their sovereignty. Churchill and Roosevelt understood this. Although the challenges may be different today than in their time, the principles they set out in the “Declaration by United Nations” are as relevant today as then. They should be upheld – at least by one of the two countries responsible for drafting the declaration.

Arslan Malik is a Visiting Fellow of Practice at the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford. He previously held positions at the U.S. Department of State, as well as with the United Nations.

Show Hide image

You may call me a monster – but I'm glad that girl's lemonade stall got shut down

What's wrong with hard-working public servants enforcing perfectly sensible regulations?

Who could fail to be moved by the widely shared tears of a five year old whose innocent lemonade stall was brutally shut down by evil bureaucrats? What sort of monster would not have their heartstrings tugged by the plaintive “I've done a bad thing” from a girl whose father tells us she “just wanted to put a smile on people's faces”?

Well me, actually.

There are half a million cases of food poisoning each year in the UK, and one of the reasons we have stringent controls on who can sell food and drink, especially in unsealed containers, is to try to cut those figures down. And street stalls in general are regulated because we have a system of taxation, rights and responsibilities in this country which underpins our functioning society. Regulation is a social and economic good.

It’s also pretty unfair to criticise the hard-working public servants who acted in this case for doing the job they are no doubt underpaid to do. For the council to say “we expect our enforcement officers to show common sense” as they cancelled the fine is all very well, but I’m willing to bet they are given precious little leeway in their training when it comes to who gets fined and who doesn’t. If the council is handing out apologies, it likely should be issuing one to its officers as well.

“But these are decent folk being persecuted by a nanny state,” I hear you cry. And I stand impervious, I’m afraid. Because I’ve heard that line a lot recently and it’s beginning to grate.

It’s the same argument used against speed cameras and parking fines. How often have you heard those caught out proclaim themselves as “law-abiding citizens” and bemoan the infringement of their freedom? I have news for you: if you break the speed limit, or park illegally, or indeed break health and safety or trading regulations, you are not a law-abiding citizen. You’re actually the one who’s in the wrong.

And rarely is ignorance an excuse. Speed limits and parking regulations are posted clearly. In the case of the now famous lemonade stand, the father in question is even quoted as saying “I thought that they would just tell us to pack up and go home.” So he knew he was breaking the rules. He just didn’t think the consequences should apply to him.

A culture of entitlement, and a belief that rules are for other people but not us, is a disease gripping middle Britain. It is demonstrated in many different ways, from the driver telling the cyclist that she has no right to be on the road because she doesn’t pay road tax (I know), to the father holding up his daughter’s tears to get out of a fine.

I know, I’m a monster. But hooray for the enforcers, I say.

Duncan Hothersall is the editor of Labour Hame