Last week, on November 8th, America failed to meet the deadline to pay its dues to UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, therefore losing voting rights and creating a stir amongst the international community. The decision to stop the funds was announced in 2011 in accordance with Israel, following the UNESCO official recognition of Palestine as a member in October 2011. Both states had until Friday to pay their debt or explain themselves, but instead they simply did not release any official statement about this matter. In this regard, the US legislation, dating back to a measure signed in the early 1990s by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, requires to cut the immediate cessation of funding to any UN agency that recognises Palestine as a member state.
As the implications of this resolution for UNESCO and its functions in the world appear grim, a sense of disappointment prevails amongst the organisation. Irina Bokova, the UNESCO director general, has openly manifested her concerns. “I can’t imagine how we could disengage with the United States at UNESCO. We are so intertwined with our message. What I regret is that this decision became so divisive and triggered this suspension of the funding,” she stated. It is in fact estimated that the overall financial contribution of the US to the organisation amounts to about $240m, which represents 22% of the entire budget. The withdrawal of funds has therefore already heavily impacted on its finances, leading to necessary cuts to new and on-going projects in developing and critical regions.
The UNESCO fall-out has also been criticised internally by the White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who tweeted “Shameful that US has lost its vote at #UNESCO. Congress needs to fix this. Current law doesn’t punish the Palestinians; it handicaps the US.” As it is argued by Mark Goldberg, editor of the United Nations and global affairs blog UN Dispatch, by losing its right to vote, America will no longer be able to either support or veto proposals within UNESCO. This implies that it will not be able to protect its national interest in the international sphere of education and culture. Problems that Washington will have to face in the near term, for example, are the unlikely designation of San Antonio and Louisiana as World Heritage Site destinations that the government has lobbied for in order to enhance employment and tackle poverty. Most importantly though, this measure may ultimately affect the role of America in the international arena, by hindering its credibility as “bearer of democracy” in underdeveloped regions. Here, in fact, the US will probably struggle to legitimise its diplomatic presence through economic and cultural influence—namely its “soft-power”— if this is not recognised and endorsed by an international organisation, such as UNESCO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y2wjVZRKSA
In light of these considerations, the decision of boycotting UNESCO and suspending the funding really seems like a losing game for both parties. This is simply because, as Ms Bokova has emphasised in her account to the UN, at least in principle, the cooperation between America and UNESCO has been made possible, since the advent of the organisation, by the common goals that they share. The promotion of peace and the fight against extremism through education, culture and economic development not only are principles at the core of all UN agencies, but have also inspired decades of American foreign policy—or at least their campaigns. It follows that by financially abandoning the institution that works towards the achievement of these goals, the US might in the best-case scenario jeopardise its own efforts to export democratic values. Given the situation, however, some may even begin to doubt America’s intentions when it comes to expanding democracy, especially in those areas, such as the Middle East, where its intervention has always been suspicious.
About the Author
uelectme.com fair a balanced political platforms.
[…] These episodes clearly strengthen the idea that Palestine has increasingly become a taboo at Columbia College—and perhaps not only there. The bigotry of a few can in fact define an alarming trend that is widespread among American society, as theorist and intellectual Edward Said argued in one of his last publications. More broadly, it is then possible that discriminations of this kind in local institutions are the reflection of the political intimacy between Washington and Jerusalem. After all, just like Columbia’s administration, the central government has repeatedly adopted controversial measures to defend the ideological supremacy of Israel on the south-eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea—notably, the recent decision to stop UNESCO funds following the organization’s official recognition of Palestine as a … […]
[…] These episodes clearly strengthen the idea that Palestine has increasingly become a taboo at Columbia College—and perhaps not only there. The bigotry of a few can in fact define an alarming trend that is widespread among American society, as theorist and intellectual Edward Said argued in one of his last publications. More broadly, it is then possible that discriminations of this kind in local institutions are the reflection of the political intimacy between Washington and Jerusalem. After all, just like Columbia’s administration, the central government has repeatedly adopted controversial measures to defend the ideological supremacy of Israel on the south-eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea—notably, the recentdecision to stop UNESCO funds following the organization’s official recognition of Palestine as a … […]