The UN is our best defence against a third world war. As Trump wields the axe, who will fight to save it?
Trump's abolition of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and scrapping of most aid programmes, has already badly damaged UN-led and UN-backed humanitarian operations, which rely on discretionary funding. Yet Trump's axe symbolises a more fundamental threat – to multilateralism and the much-battered international rules-based order. The basic concept of collective responsibility for maintaining global peace and security, and collaboration in tackling shared problems – embodied by the UN since its creation 80 years ago last week – is on the chopping block.
The stakes are high – and Washington is not the only villain. Like the US, about 40 countries are behind in paying obligatory yearly dues. Discretionary donations are declining. The UN charter, a statement of founding principles, has been critically undermined by failure to halt Russia's illegal war of aggression in Ukraine (and by last month's US-Israeli attack on Iran). China and others, including the UK, ignore international law when it suits. The number and longevity of conflicts worldwide is rising; UN envoys are sidelined; UN peacekeeping missions are disparaged. The security council is often paralysed by vetoes; the general assembly is largely powerless. By many measures, the UN isn't working.
A crunch looms. If the UN is allowed to fail or is so diminished that its agencies cannot fully function, there is nothing to take its place. Nothing, that is, except the law of the jungle, as seen in Gaza and other conflict zones where UN agencies are excluded, aid workers murdered and legal norms flouted. The UN system has many failings, some self-inflicted. But a world without the UN would, for most people in most places, be more dangerous, hungrier, poorer, unhealthier and less sustainable.
The US is not expected to withdraw from the UN altogether (although nothing is impossible with this isolationist, ultra-nationalist president). But Trump's hostile intent is evident. His 2026 budget proposal seeks a 83.7% cut – from $58.7bn to $9.6bn – in all US international spending. That includes an 87% reduction in UN funding, both obligatory and discretionary. 'In 2023, total US spending on the UN amounted to about $13bn. This is equivalent to only 1.6% of the Pentagon's budget that year ($816bn) – or about two-thirds of what Americans spend on ice-cream annually,' Stewart Patrick of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted. Economic development aid, disaster relief and family planning programmes would be gutted.
The impact is potentially world-changing. Key UN agencies in the firing line include the children's fund, Unicef – at a time when the risks facing infants and children are daunting; the World Food Programme (WFP), which could lose 30% of its staff; agencies handling refugees and migration, which are also shrinking; the International court of justice (the 'world court'), which has shone a light on Israel's illegal actions in Gaza; and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iran's and others' nuclear activities.
Trump is already boycotting the World Health Organization, the Palestinian relief agency (Unrwa) and the UN Human Rights Council, and has rescinded $4bn allocated to the UN climate fund, claiming that all act contrary to US interests. If his budget is adopted this autumn, the UN's 2030 sustainable development goals may prove unattainable. US financial backing for international peacekeeping and observer missions in trouble spots such as Lebanon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kosovo, currently 26% of total spending, will plunge to zero.
The withdrawal of USAID support is already proving lethal, everywhere from Somalia and Sudan to Bangladesh and Haiti. UN officials describe the situation in post-earthquake, conflict-riven, aid-deprived Myanamar as a 'humanitarian catastrophe'. Research published in the Lancet found that Trump's cuts could cause more than 14m additional deaths by 2030, a third of them children.
The WFP, the world's largest food aid supplier, says its projected $8.1bn funding deficit this year comes as acute hunger affects a record 343 million people in 74 countries. And other donor states are failing to fill the gap left by the US. So far in 2025, only 11% of the $46.2bn required for 44 UN-prioritised crises has been raised. The UK recently slashed its aid budget by £6bn, to pay for nuclear bombs.
UN chiefs acknowledge that many problems pre-date Trump. António Guterres, the secretary general, has initiated thousands of job cuts as part of the 'UN80' reform plan to consolidate operations and reduce the core budget by up to 20%. But, marking the anniversary, Guterres said the gravest challenge is the destructive attitude of member states that sabotage multilateral cooperation, break the rules, fail to pay their share and forget why the UN was founded in the first place. 'The charter of the United Nations is not optional. It is not an à la carte menu. It is the bedrock of international relations,' he said.
Guterres says the UN's greatest achievement since 1945 is preventing a third world war. Yet respected analysts such as Fiona Hill believe it's already begun. The UK and other democracies face some pressing questions. Will they meekly give in to Trump once again? Or will they fight to stop this renegade president and rogue states such as Russia and Israel dismantling the world's best defence against global anarchy, forever wars and needless suffering?
Will they fight to save the UN?
Simon Tisdall is a Guardian columnist
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Spectator
Europe must prepare to support Ukraine without America
It is unquestionably the case that people who should have known better were blinded by the Capri-Sun King's glare when they reassured us that Donald Trump would not abandon Ukraine, that a second Trump administration would not really cut off military aid to Kyiv or effectively offer a free pass to Vladimir Putin. Yet that is what is happening. Last week the US Department of Defense halted a planned delivery of air defence missiles and precision munitions to Ukraine, the third time this year that such a stoppage has been put in place. The weaponry was part of a supply programme agreed under President Biden, but was halted as the Pentagon undertakes a 'capability review' to assess stockpiles currently held by the United States. A spokesman explained: We can't give weapons to everybody all around the world. Part of our job is to give the President a framework that he can use to evaluate how many munitions we have and where we're sending them. And that review process is happening right now and is ongoing. However, the motivation behind the sudden decision, reportedly taken personally by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and without coordination or consultation either within the administration or with Congress, is suspect. Democrat Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said his staff had 'seen the numbers' and 'we are not at any lower point, stockpile-wise, than we've been in the three-and-a-half years of the Ukraine conflict'. President Trump has made no secret of his attitude towards Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelensky or his scepticism of their cause. It is no surprise that a partisan as zealously loyal and conceptually unfit for office as Hegseth should mirror the commander-in-chief's instincts. For Ukraine, and for European security, this is serious. It is no coincidence that at the end of last week Russia launched its biggest air strikes on Kyiv since the beginning of the full-scale invasion in 2022, using more than 500 drones. Ukraine is believed to be running dangerously low on stocks of interceptor missiles for its US-supplied MIM-104 Patriot air defence systems, which made up part of the anticipated deliveries, as did FIM-92 Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missiles. There are reports that Ukrainian forces were reduced to using machine guns to try to bring down drones in the recent air strikes. It must now be clear to any observer – as it is certainly clear to a gleeful Kremlin – that the United States is not a reliable ally to Ukraine, unpredictable even in its reliability (some of the munitions to be transferred last week had already been loaded onto lorries in Poland before their delivery was stopped by the Pentagon). What is the solution? How do Ukraine's allies in Europe respond? Germany has already sent three of its own Patriot batteries to Ukraine, but last week it emerged that Chancellor Friedrich Merz has also discussed purchasing further missiles from the United States and sending them on to Ukraine. Merz and his SPD defence minister, Boris Pistorius, are keen for Germany to take a stronger leadership role on Ukraine. Major General Christian Freuding, who oversees the Special Staff for Ukraine at the Federal Defence Ministry in Berlin, noted that Nato's European members plus Canada had exceeded the estimated $20 billion (£14.7 billion) of military assistance from Washington last year. 'If the political will is there, then the means will also be there to largely compensate for the American support,' Freuding added. There are two parts to assistance to Ukraine. The first is the obvious support for defensive measures like Patriot missiles to protect the country from Russian air strikes. Germany's apparent intentions are welcome in that regard, and will make a real difference so long as President Trump does not also prove reluctant to countenance even the sale of weapons to third parties for shipment to Ukraine. The second part has to be assisting Ukraine in more active measures against Russia. If Ukrainian forces can take the fight to Russian bases and installations, and particularly if they can force Russia to pull forces further back from the border for safety, they will make themselves all the safer. We saw last November the effect that long-range strikes could have when the United States finally agreed to remove restrictions on the use of MGM-140 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles and the UK followed suit on Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Olaf Scholz had vetoed the supply of Taurus long-range missiles when chancellor of Germany. Merz has shifted Berlin's position, saying such a supply is 'within the realms of possibility' and agreeing a deal to help manufacture new precision strike weapons in Ukraine. America has been the biggest bilateral donor to Ukraine but it is not irreplaceable. If supplies from the United States are beginning to falter, however, European nations need to act quickly and decisively. Germany is doing so, and the UK, especially after lifting restrictions on Storm Shadow, has been generally reliable. We should not see assistance to Ukraine as separate from each country's national security: the threat from Russia is here, now, and it is being unleashed on the cities and armies of Ukraine. The West cannot and should not wait to respond.
The Independent
15 minutes ago
- The Independent
As US abruptly ends support, Liberia faces empty health clinics and unplanned pregnancies
Five months ago, Roseline Phay, a 32-year-old farmer from the West African nation of Liberia, set off on a quest to find contraceptives. Phay and her partner have two daughters, and they barely make ends meet. Determined not to have more children, she went to a health worker in her village, but contraception pills, implants and condoms had run out. Phay trekked for hours on red clay roads to the nearest clinic, but they had no contraceptives either. She did not know it, but her mission was doomed from the beginning. Just weeks before, U.S. President Donald Trump abruptly suspended most foreign aid through the U.S. Agency for International Development, which paid for medications in Liberia's public clinics. Tenacious and outspoken, Phay repeated the trip four times. Then she got pregnant. 'I'm suffering,' she said, with daughter Pauline crying in her arms. 'I have this little child on my back, and the other child in my stomach is suffering." She must continue farming throughout her pregnancy, she said, or "I will not eat.' After she got pregnant she had to wean Pauline off breastfeeding, she said, and the girl became so badly malnourished that she almost died. The U.S. cuts left no therapeutic food to give her, and she is still ill. Phay is among millions across Africa who have seen their lives upended after the U.S. aid cuts. In Liberia, the American support made up almost 2.6% of the gross national income, the highest percentage anywhere in the world, according to the Center for Global Development. 'The impact of USAID in Liberia cannot be overstated,' said Richlue O. Burphy, who worked for USAID projects for over a decade and manages the National Lottery, a government body. 'Everywhere you go, you see the USAID (signs). And almost all the government institutions ... had some kind of USAID partnership.' A feeling of betrayal The sense of betrayal runs deep in Liberia, established in the early 1800s with the aim of relocating freed slaves and free-born Black people from the United States. The political system is modeled on that of the U.S., along with its flag. Liberians often refer to the U.S. as their 'big brother.' Liberia was one of the first countries to receive USAID support, starting in 1961. Its officials thought they would be spared from Trump's cuts because of the countries' close relationship. Following civil wars and an Ebola epidemic, Liberia's survival has depended largely on foreign aid, mainly from the U.S. and the World Bank. Despite abundant natural wealth, six out of 10 Liberians live in poverty, according to the World Bank, and Liberia is among the world's 10 poorest nations. The aid cuts pose 'a serious challenge,' especially for the healthcare system, Deputy Finance Minister Dehpue Y. Zuo, responsible for drafting the development budget, told The Associated Press. To make sure the system stays afloat, he said, "we have to take a dramatic switch to see where we will be cutting funding for other areas.' Liberia received an average of $527.6 million in aid annually between 2014 and 2023, according to the finance ministry. This year, Liberia was supposed to receive $443 million, but the total estimated impact of the cuts is $290 million — essentially what hadn't been disbursed yet. USAID funding built schools and health clinics, provided training for teachers and doctors and gave scholarships for study in the U.S. It supported small-scale farmers and paid for school meals. But most of the U.S. funding went to Liberia's health system, making up 48% of its budget. It funded malaria control, maternal health programs, HIV/AIDS treatment and community health programs. It financed hundreds of health projects run by aid groups. Now in Bong county, where Phay lives, medicine shelves in health clinics are almost empty. The USAID-funded ambulance cannot function because there is no money for fuel. Hospitals are running out of hand sanitizer and gloves. Training for medical staff has stopped, and community health workers have not been paid in months. An opening for China Moses K. Banyan, head of the nearby CB Dunbar Hospital, described the U.S. cuts as 'beyond a shock.' He worried about the future, especially now that Bong county has begun to see a handful of mpox cases spread from neighboring Sierra Leone. Warning of the cuts could have helped in finding options, he said. 'But it's like you were sleeping, you woke up and you were told: 'Hey, leave this house.'' The withdrawal of U.S. support is an opportunity for others, especially China, experts and officials said. Chinese companies have been operating Liberia's gold mines, building roads and training aid workers. Chinese beer is sold alongside local brands. Many Liberians who would have sent children to universities in the U.S. are now choosing China. Last month, China opened a cardiology wing in the capital's main hospital, which is named after John F. Kennedy but was commonly referred to as 'Just For Killing' because of its scarce resources, even before the U.S. cuts. 'There are gaps to be filled, and that cannot be covered by the government of Liberia,' said Zuo, the deputy finance minister. 'We are open door to the rest of the world, including the United States.' In Phay's village of Sarworlor, community health worker Alice Togbah still wears her USAID vest though she hasn't been paid in months. She has no more malaria medication for children. She is running out of cough medicine and diarrhea treatment. A 4-year-old resident, Promise, got malaria a few days ago. Her mother, Grace Morris, obtained only a limited number of malaria tablets at the nearest clinic because of the U.S. cuts. Now they are finished, and the child still feels ill. 'Children die from malaria here,' she said. Last year, her neighbor's son died because he did not get medication on time. Morris and other women also seek contraceptives. Liberia in recent years made strides in bringing down teenage pregnancy rates and maternal mortality rates. For women in traditional, conservative communities, access to contraceptives meant reclaiming some control over their lives. 'If ... my man touches me, I cannot say no because I need to satisfy him,' Phay said. 'But if I have no medicine, I will get pregnant.' Her 9-year-old daughter, also named Promise, is living in the capital, Monrovia, with her aunt. Phay wants her to finish school and have a different life from hers. 'I am begging, if you people have the medicine, you people need to help us," she said. 'I don't want her to suffer like me." ___ For more on Africa and development: The Associated Press receives financial support for global health and development coverage in Africa from the Gates Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
White House challenged over Epstein client list claims
The White House has been challenged over its declaration that no Jeffrey Epstein client list exists. This challenge follows Attorney General Pam Bondi 's previous statements that she had the list 'ready to review' and it was 'sitting on my desk'. During a press conference, Karoline Leavitt was questioned by Fox News ' Peter Doocy about the Department of Justice 's new memo stating no further investigations into other individuals would be launched. Leavitt clarified that the Attorney General was referring to 'all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes' when she mentioned having the list. Watch the video in full above.
