The draft executive order from the new US administration that would slash a minimum of 40% of funding to multilateral institutions, such as the UN and the World Bank, threatens deep and destabilising consequences for the international system and the people it aims to help. And it won’t help the US, either.

This comes in a year where the UN secretary general will give special attention to how the UN can meet its core mandate on peace and security, culminating in a global session on sustaining peace in September.

'Global gag rule': stop playing politics with women's lives, MSF tells Trump Read more

Looking at the violent conflict and suffering around the world, it is obvious that the UN and other international institutions can do better. But the UN and the World Bank do matter as the only global institutions dedicated to finding solutions to transnational threats and challenges that affect us all, whether that is violent extremism, Ebola or climate change.

After all, one of the reasons the second world war broke out was the failure of the League of Nations, which the US did not ultimately join, despite being one of its key architects. After the war claimed tens of millions of lives, the UN was created to “save future generations from the scourge of war”. For all the organisation’s failings, on the whole it has played a central role in creating common responses to global ills.

The potential for cuts to UN peacekeeping efforts alone could have grave consequences. The US funds roughly 25% of the $7.9bn (£6.3bn) budget. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is the largest peacekeeping operation in the world. Despite criticism of the mission in recent years, a radical scaling back in the UN’s commitment could have a far-reaching and destabilising effect, not just for the country but the entire Great Lakes region. It is vital that the new US policy is not about demolition, but renovation.

The new administration is proposing to disengage with the very international organisations that can deal with the root causes of violence – not just the symptoms. Tackling the origins of conflict – whether due to an oppressive or corrupt government, economic exclusion or historical grievances – is the only way to stop it once and for all. Hard security interventions, hunting down and killing “terrorists” might feel good and show action, but it won’t solve the problem in the long term. US national security interests are intimately intertwined with the international system and the agencies that execute its will. They need to do better – but it’s only states with the right clout that can make this happen.

The orders also foreshadow revisiting fundamental human rights commitments. The US is yet to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the lack of its signature is deeply symbolic and a setback to the world’s collective efforts to promote women’s rights and equality. We also know that there is a link between terrorism and political violence (pdf), such as state-sanctioned killings, torture, disappearances and political imprisonment.

Leaving human rights abusers unchallenged, especially when they are states, threatens peace in those countries, their regions, and further afield – including in Europe and the US, which have suffered at the hands of al-Qaida and Isis. If the administration wants to talk tough on states that oppose its interests, then here is your quarry.

Trump policy changes would leave lives of millions in balance, agencies warn Read more

As Samantha Power, the US representative to the UN, said in the January debate in the UN security council on sustaining peace, we are better off when we strengthen the rule-based international order, and that means living by the norms that protect all of our common security and common humanity.

In a way, the new administration’s message – which is essentially about reducing exclusion and inequality, both perceived and real, and often associated with those who have been excluded from the benefits of globalisation – resembles the ambitions embedded throughout the UN global goals. Indeed, goal 10 is specifically aimed at tackling inequality. The administration has also repeatedly portrayed itself as a champion of the voiceless. In the same way, we rarely hear the voices of those the UN seeks to help in the UN security council or general assembly, or in the boardrooms of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. There is a huge opportunity to internationalise a version of this core domestic agenda.

In addition, the US administration’s pledge to boost the economy through improved trade can only benefit from tackling violence. If war costs us $13.6tn (£10.9tn) a year, the argument for focusing on peace and stability is a very powerful one.

Ultimately, in a year when the UN will partake in a long overdue self-reflection on how it meets its core commitment to maintaining international peace and security, the US has a choice to make. It can lead or it can literally “cut and run”.