UN report fears catastrophic fallout in the Middle East from proposed US funding cuts

Shortfall in funding for work in the Middle East could 'stoke sectarian tensions, fuel resentment of refugees, erode the legitimacy of governments and, ultimately, lead to the collapse of governments', according to UN refugee agency report.

Syrian refugees wait to be registered at a UNHCR centre in the Lebanese port city of Tripoli. Anwar Amro / AFP / May 29, 2014

New York // Threatened cuts in US funding of the United Nations could put lives at risk across the Middle East, increase sectarian tensions, push displaced people into the arms of extremist groups and bring down fragile governments, according to an internal forecast by the UN’s refugee agency.

The United States is the biggest donor to the UN and its agencies but Donald Trump’s administration is planning to cut billions of dollars from its diplomatic and aid budgets.

Humanitarian groups are braced for severe shortfalls when his 2018 budget is unveiled later this month amid fears the US will reduce the amount of money it pays to the UN by as much as 40 per cent.

The scale of the potential human catastrophe is laid bare in the report by the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency.

It says American reductions in support for its work in the Middle East could have major implications for regional stability, putting countries hosting refugees at risk.

“Mounting pressures could stoke sectarian tensions, fuel resentment of refugees, erode the legitimacy of governments and, ultimately, lead to the collapse of governments in already fragile states, including US allies like Jordan, Iraq, and Turkey,” says the report, obtained by The National.

It comes at a time of unprecedented global need. More than 20 million people face starvation in Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and Nigeria, according to the UN, while aid agencies are still struggling to cope with the humanitarian fallout from the Syrian civil war.

With more than 17 million people on the move across the Middle East and North Africa, UNHCR programmes are helping vulnerable populations find shelter and protection. Ending that help could send more fleeing to Europe, the report says.

In Iraq, it says any cuts will put lives at risk among the 1.5 million people it is helping, particularly during winter.

In Jordan, hundreds of thousands of refugees would lose support.

In Turkey, the agency fears that any reduction in services could prompt Ankara to shut its borders to Syrian refugees.

But the most damaging effects could be felt in Syria itself.

“In Syria, reduced assistance and humanitarian presence would further increase child labour, early and forced marriage and sexual exploitation,” the report states. “Child recruitment which is already of grave concern in large parts of Syria could also rise, fuelling continued violence.

“Syrians will be driven to cross borders and attempt the journey to Europe, regardless of the risks and the uncertainty of access to Europe, putting their lives in the hands of smugglers.”

The worst-case scenario underscores the UN’s reliance on American money.

An analysis by John McArthur of the Brookings Institute, published last week, found that both the UNHCR and World Food Programme – the second of the UN’s mega humanitarian agencies – receive about 40 per cent of their funding from the US.

The sums involved are vast. In total, US funding is worth more than $10 billion (Dh36.7bn) to the UN, including $5.4bn to the core UN budget – paying for the New York headquarters and political missions around the world – and 28.5 per cent of the $7.9bn peacekeeping budget.

The danger of cuts was spelled out recently by nine former American ambassadors to the UN who wrote to members of Congress setting out the benefits of working with international partners to promote human rights and tackle insecurity from North Korea to the Middle East.

“Withholding or slashing funding for the UN, by contrast, weakens our hand, alienates allies whose support is critical to our reform priorities, undermines essential UN activities that promote core American interests and values, and costs us more over the long term,” they wrote.

“It also cedes the agenda to countries that can be hostile to our interests and more than willing to see the US give up its seat at the table.”

Critics worry that China or other nations with poor human rights records will step in to replace US funding, although analysts say it is too early yet to know what will happen if Washington makes good on its threats.

So far, the Trump administration has announced plans to reduce funding for the State Department and USAID by 28 per cent – or $11bn.

How much of that will be passed on to the UN is unclear but an executive order drafted in January (and never signed) called for US contributions to be reduced by 40 per cent.

Some cuts have been announced in the meantime. Last month the administration said it was ending support for the United Nations Population Fund over disputed allegations it was supporting forced abortions in China.

And the US says it will reduce its contribution to the peacekeeping fund from 28 per cent of the total cost to 25 per cent, worth more than $200m.

More will become clear with the full federal budget, expected to be released on May 22.

Officials at the UN headquarters in New York hope the worst of the cuts could then be watered down as the budget passes through Congress. In addition, Mr Trump has softened his rhetoric on US isolation and warmed to multilateral institutions including Nato and the UN.

Richard Gowan, a UN expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said senior UN figures believed they could work with Nikki Haley, Mr Trump’s permanent representative, to find efficiencies that might allow the White House to claim a funding victory while shielding agencies from the worst-case scenario.

That still left a huge amount of uncertainty at the WFP and UNHCR, he added.

“It does mean that you have two big organisations dealing with record levels of humanitarian pain that are addicted to US dollars and no one knows how bad the cuts are going to be,” he said.

Chris Boian, a spokesman for the UNHCR in Washington, said it was too early to know what changes would be made to US funding but that humanitarian needs were already immense.

“UNHCR has a long and strong partnership with the United States which has set the gold standard for assisting refugees – innocent people fleeing war, terror, violence and persecution,” he said. “We look forward to continuing that partnership to ensure the most vulnerable people in the world receive the care and compassion they need and deserve.”