LONDON — The British Council is running out of cash due to the coronavirus lockdowns worldwide and is in talks with the U.K. government over long-term emergency funding.

The pandemic has forced the British Council to shut down 44 out of its 47 English language schools and 195 of 223 test centers around the world, according to a spokesperson for the organization. This has cut off its main source of income and created a substantial budget deficit.

The British Council is a public body funded by the Foreign Office and a charity that promotes the learning of English, funds research and training of English teachers and runs culture diplomacy events. It has already received £26 million of emergency funding from the government on top of its annual grant of £161 million, and has furloughed 18 percent of its roughly 1,175-strong U.K. workforce.

However, the Public and Commercial Services Union and parliamentarians have raised concerns that this will not fill the funding gap and reserves might run out by the end of May.

The organization is holding talks with officials over long-term emergency funding, but one said the government wants to wait until the full impact of the pandemic is clear before committing extra money.

A spokesperson for the British Council said, “COVID-19 has had a significant impact on our finances. We’re grateful for the short-term funding from the U.K. government and we are in constructive talks with the government to identify a long-term solution.”

‘Enlightened self-interest’

In the 2019-20 financial year, the British Council managed to increase its income to £1.33 billion from £1.25 billion the previous year, despite a 9.5 percent cut in the government’s grant.

Crossbench peer Jean Coussins, who co-chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages, urged the government to rescue the British Council.

“Further support is essential before the end of May to ensure that the organization has a future,” she said. “If ever there was a case for a government bailout based on enlightened self-interest, it is this.”

“I hope the conversations [with government] pay off very rapidly because it is the end of May that is the crucial cut-off date for the British Council to know where it stands financially in order to know whether it can continue its work, so this is very urgent,” she added.

The PCS union, which has launched a campaign to save the British Council, fears mass redundancies and pay cuts might be looming. The British Council employs about 12,000 staff in more than 100 countries.

The University Council of Modern Languages, which represents modern languages scholars, has written to Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, saying, “everything the Council undertakes across its many schemes and programs responds in a direct and concrete way to the government’s Global Britain strategy.”

UCML’s chair Claire Gorrara said, “The British Council has been the biggest ambassador for British culture and values abroad through its English language teaching programs and cultural diplomacy. That would be a massive challenge for the U.K. higher education sector given that we are going to be facing a very, very big change in terms of Brexit and the loss of international partnerships.

“The British Council is one of the most trusted British institutions abroad with many, many years of experience and relationships, and it would in some extent undermine Global Britain’s strategy if one of its most effective and successful ambassadorial arms effectively is lost.”

A spokesman for the Foreign Office said the government is helping the British Council in accessing job retention schemes to enable them to furlough staff, in addition to the £26 million of emergency funding.

“This will help it support its workforce, and those employed through its partners, who are normally funded through its commercial side. The British Council is a precious part of the [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] family, and we will continue to support it and help identify solutions,” the spokesman said.

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to pull out of an international treaty designed to bring more transparency to military activities set off an uproar on Thursday, including claims the abrupt move may violate the law.

The Open Skies Treaty, which was first proposed by President Dwight Eisenhower and signed by President George H.W. Bush, permits reciprocal flights over military facilities and has long been considered a stabilizing force, especially for nations that lack spy satellites or other high-tech means to monitor military facilities.

The treaty has been signed by more than 30 nations, including Russia, and went into effect in 2002. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the U.S. on Friday will notify the various parties that it’s withdrawing, which will take effect in six months.

“The Administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Open Skies Treaty is a slap in the face to our allies in Europe, leaves our deployed forces in the region at risk, and is in blatant violation of the law,” said Representative Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “This decision weakens our national security interests, isolates the United States since the Treaty will continue without us, and abandons a useful tool to hold Russia accountable.”

“What’s more, this decision has been made without any consultation with Congress,” Smith added, pointing out that the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act requires a minimum of 120 days’ notice of withdrawal.

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel also accused Trump of “knowingly breaking the law.”

“President Trump and his appointees have again shown disdain for arms control, lack of respect for Congress and its Constitutional authority, and disregard for the rule of law,” said Engel in a statement.

The decision was also seen by other lawmakers as a betrayal of U.S. allies who depend on the treaty and fueled new fears Trump could also let the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia expire early next year.

“The dangerous and misguided decision to abandon this international agreement cripples our ability to conduct aerial surveillance of Russia, while allowing Russian reconnaissance flights over U.S. bases in Europe to continue,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat and member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees.

“The administration’s decision to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty — and the uncertainty surrounding its commitment to New START — is very alarming. It betrays the transatlantic alliance,” she added.

The Trump administration, however, has maintained that Russia has violated Open Skies and that it no longer serves its purpose.

Critics of the pact also insist that widely available commercial satellite imagery can now be used to collect the same intelligence data as the flights permitted by Open Skies.

Trump’s decision to inform Moscow on Friday of the withdrawal decision was first reported by The New York Times. It would add to a growing list of treaties the president has walked away from, including the nuclear deal with Iran, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia, and the Paris climate agreement.

Trump expanded on his plans on Thursday, telling reporters at the White House that “Russia didn’t adhere to the treaty, so until they adhere, we will pull out.”

For some hawks, the move is long overdue. Senator Tom Cotton, a Trump ally, lauded the development, calling withdrawal from the treaty “another positive step to end America’s dependence on dysfunctional and broken treaties.”

“The Open Skies Treaty started life as a good-faith agreement between major powers and died an asset of Russian intelligence,” he added in a statement.

The Associated Press reported that U.S. allies have already been informed of the impending move.

“They asked us not to leave,” said Alexandra Bell, a former State Department official who is now senior policy director for the Council for a Livable World. “The problems of the treaty are minor. They were fixable.”

Others warned Trump is doing more damage to alliances for no gain.

“A unilateral U.S. exit from Open Skies would undermine our security and that of our European allies, all of whom strongly support the treaty,” said Thomas Countryman, the former acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security who is now chair of the board of the Arms Control Association.

“It has the effect — and perhaps this is the intention — of signaling a diminished U.S. commitment to its NATO allies,” he added.

Greg Delawie, the former deputy assistant secretary of state for arms control who was responsible for the Open Skies Treaty from 2012 to 2015, predicted the U.S. will come to regret the decision.

“Open Skies works; its costs are minimal; and it is popular for its shared military and political value with allies,” he said. “If the treaty completely falls apart following a U.S. withdrawal, Russia will have greater freedom to make trouble in areas.