United States: Withdrawal from International Organisations

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for the United Kingdom of the withdrawal by the United States from 66 international organisations, conventions and treaties.

My Lords, the decision to withdraw from certain international organisations, conventions and treaties is, of course, for the United States. It is the right of every sovereign state to take its own decisions in this regard, but the UK’s commitment to multilateral co-operation and international law remains as strong as ever. The UN and other international institutions continue to play a critical role in advancing our priorities on climate change, preventing and ending conflicts and ending violence against women and girls.

My Lords, I fully recognise the right of the United States of America to take part in or leave international organisations as the elected Government see fit. It seems very strange that a presidency that chases peace awards has withdrawn funding from and organisational commitment to Education Cannot Wait—the organisation set up to support child refugees suffering from conflict—the United Nations’ Peacebuilding Commission and Peacebuilding Fund, the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, and the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict. In the UK, there has been cross-party support for these five bodies across several terms of Parliament. Will this Labour Government maintain the funding committed by the previous Conservative Government to these organisations as the new funding round is announced over the coming months? Will the UK also use its good offices at the United Nations through the friends of peacebuilding to try to ensure increased support from others to try to make up for this American shortfall?

As my noble friend said, it is for the Americans to make their own choices about what they decide to fund. The organisations that he referred to—he mentioned Education Cannot Wait in particular—do a tremendous job, and our commitment to them is steadfast. Our allocations will be announced in the coming weeks, I hope, so there is not too much longer to wait for them, so that noble Lords can see for themselves where the United Kingdom Government are putting their money. In broad terms, my noble friend makes the point very well about multilateralism and the need for countries to come together to address the greatest challenges that the world faces, and I agree with him.

Does the Minister agree that this latest decision by the Americans is not evidence of isolationism but actually an indication of increasing intervention by the United States without any regard to international co-operation or the implications for the climate, poverty or human rights? It is a determination to act on their own regardless of what anybody else thinks about it.

I encourage noble Lords not to overinterpret a decision such as this. I note the announcement last week of $2 billion from the United States to OCHA, which organises humanitarian support through the UN, which many people had not predicted. It is important that we respect the decisions of our closest ally in terms of funding. It is also important that the United Kingdom is not seen as a defender of the status quo in many of these organisations. Change is needed. We have argued for change for some time now. It is being accelerated because of decisions about money, but we should not allow our views on budgets to obscure the fact that we want change, efficiency and every penny to go to those who need it most.

My Lords, without US support and funding, it is likely that many of those organisations will need to reassess their work or seek greater funding and support from other member states, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, outlined. Can the Minister tell the House whether the UK has received any requests for additional funding—that is, in addition to what we are already spending—from any of these organisations following the USA’s withdrawal?

It is important that we keep this in a bit of perspective. The amount of money that would come as a consequence of the announcement that the US made is about 3% of the UN’s overall budget. We already fund some organisations in the UN that the US does not fund, and we are not members of some of the 66 organisations in regard to which the US announced that it was changing its position. Where we believe that the global challenges can be met in British interests by our participation, we will continue. Where we do not feel like that, we will not.

My Lords, will the Minister take advantage of the visit by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the end of this week to work with him to sustain the work of these institutions which are being damaged by the American decision? Frankly, whether or not it is America’s right to do this is not the relevant point. The relevant point is whether or not the people who are helped by these organisations will continue to be so.

As I have explained, we are not participants in all the organisations concerned, but we are of course strong supporters of the United Nations and of the Secretary-General and we take every opportunity to participate positively and constructively. We take our leadership role globally very seriously and we will continue to do that; we will continue to be strong supporters of the multilateral system in all its forms.

My Lords, following President Trump’s announcement, the US will be the only country outside the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The US is the world’s second-largest carbon emitter, which has negative consequences for everyone. Are the Government concerned that a major polluter will operate outside international law? If so, what will they do?

We are completely committed to the framework on climate change and to the Paris Agreement; that is not going to change. The best thing we can do is to be clear about our position and clear about what we see as the economic benefits of transition away from the use of fossil fuels. I think many countries are coming to agree with us on this because of the impact on climate, of course, but also because of the benefits to them in relation to the cost of production and energy sovereignty.

My Lords, let us make a note about further mass graves being discovered in Darfur and the continuing conflict in Sudan. Will the Minister please take every opportunity to emphasise the links between conflict and justice, and conflict and displacement, with over 120 million people displaced in the world? In particular, will she emphasise our commitment to the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide and the duty to predict, to prevent, to protect and to punish?

I completely agree with the noble Lord and thank him for raising Sudan and what has happened in Darfur. I was encouraged to see the United States’ commitment to OCHA under the leadership of Tom Fletcher. I am meeting Tom tomorrow, and I will be discussing the very issues that the noble Lord has mentioned.

My Lords, the various UN peacekeeping missions around the world—I think there are currently 14—have a vital role to play. However, those of us who have had the privilege of visiting many of those missions know that some are notoriously poorly run and have limited cost control. Can the Minister tell the House what measures she will take in this very austere time for the UN to make sure that we get better value for money from these organisations and peacekeeping missions?

There is a lot more involved in this than peacekeeping, but it is a very important element of what the United Nations and other multilateral organisations involve themselves in. The point about value and efficiency is critical. We are being quite forward-leaning, as they would say in the Foreign Office, about our desire to see reform and change. It matters that this money ought to find its way to the front line, be that in support of a peacekeeping mission in Somalia or for maternal health in Kenya. Efficiency and value for money matter in their own right, but also because we want to sustain and grow public confidence.