Why Did the US React to UNESCO Making Palestine a Full Member State in the Way that the US Did - Research Paper Example

Why did the US react to UNESCO making Palestine a full member state in the way that the US did? Lynch (2011) has written on The Washington Post dated October 31, 2011, that “Acting under a legal requirement to cut U.S. funds to any U.N. agency that recognizes a Palestinian state, the State Department announced that the United States has stopped funding the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization because of the vote” (Lynch, 2011). America’s decision to cut off funds to UNESCO like a global body raised many supports and criticisms in the world. It should be noted that America is the major financier for most of the global bodies working under or as part of United Nations and UNNESCO is also not an exception. About 22% of UNESCO’s yearly spending was done with the help of America’s aids. Obama administration was planning to make a $60 million payment to UNESCO this year, before UNESCO decides to recognize Palestine as an independent state. America describes above action as a statutory requirement. However, external political observers are of the view that there are other reasons for America’s action. This paper addresses the question; why did the US react to UNESCO making Palestine a full member state in the way that the US did? Reasons for America’s action “The 1990s law prohibits U.S. funding to any U.N. organization that grants full membership to any group that does not have "internationally recognized attributes" of statehood” (Cornwell, 2011). America has some well-defined laws with respect to its foreign policies and international aids. American laws prohibit funding or financial assistance to any countries or bodies which do not possess global recognition. Palestine is not recognized by many countries in the world and therefore America believes that providing assistance to such disputed states is illogical. Since UNESCO has recognized Palestine as an independent state, any funding to UNESCO may result in helping Palestine indirectly. It should be noted that UNESCO is spending majority of the financial aids received from other countries for the betterment of people in underdeveloped countries and therefore, a portion of US funding, may go to Palestine after its recognition by UNESCO. America does not like such a scenario and they are adamant about the ways in which global agencies spend the funding received from them. The United States and its ally Israel oppose the Palestinian diplomatic foray in the U.N. system, describing it as an attempt to bypass the two-decade old peace process. Washington says only a resumption of peace talks ending in a treaty with Israel can bring about the Palestinian goal of statehood (Cornwell, 2011) America always believes that the Israel-Palestine issue should be solved with the help of multilateral dialogues. In other words, dialogues between Israel and Palestine under the supervision of any of the global bodies were the better way to solve this historical dispute amicably as per the beliefs of United States. Whitbeck (1996) has pointed out that “According to the Declaration of Principles (DOP) signed on the White House lawn in September 1993, the issues to be covered during permanent-status negotiations are "Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest" (Whitbeck, 1996). America believes that unilateral actions by UNESCO, such as the recognition of Palestine before solving problems the mentioned above, may bring more harm than good. Palestine statehood should be an issue only after the settlement of the issues mentioned above as per the beliefs of America. “Palestinian officials have said they intend to apply for full membership of as many U.N. agencies as possible. This clearly worries State Department officials who fear a loss of U.S. influence if more funding cutoffs are triggered by law” (Cornwell, 2011). Currently, America is successful in controlling the matters related to Israel- Palestine dispute. However, once Palestine succeeded in getting membership in as many UN bodies, America may struggle to interfere effectively in the matters related to Palestine. So, they wanted to warn other US organizations against the intentions of following the path of UNESCO. America definitely fears that more UN organizations and other global bodies may follow UNESCO’s action and they may lose complete control over Palestine. Lynch (2011) has pointed out that “Palestinians intend to pursue membership in a number of specialized U.N. agencies, which have their own rules for membership and where the United States does not have veto power” (Lynch, 2011). Shannon (2003), has mentioned that “There are several lenses through which one can interpret US policies aimed at the Arab-Israeli conflict like, contrasting national interests, special relationship politics with Israel, bureaucratic politics and individual beliefs” (Shannon, 2003, p. 3). It is an accepted fact that US is more aligned towards Israel and it is more interested in protecting the interests of Israel than Palestine because of cultural reasons. Even though Christianity, Islam and Jewism have a common father in the name of Abraham (Christianity, Islam and Jewism are three Abrahamic religions), America historically polarised more towards Israel. Under no circumstances, America will sacrifice the interests of Israelis. Both Palestine and Israel know this. In fact Arab world accused that America and Israel are trying to baptize the entire Muslims in the world and the current agitations against Muslims in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Pakistan etc are substantiating their claims. Avineri (2001) has pointed out that “to prepare both sides for negotiations, U.S. policy should shift from conflict resolution to conflict management and also the Palestinians should educate their people for peace, to ease current tensions” (Avineri). America wanted to settle all the issues between Israel and Palestine before recognising Palestine as an independent state. In their opinion, unresolved problems may be difficult to settle once Palestine attains the status of an independent state. In America’s views, topics such as “Assessing the dynamics of the conflict, Promoting understanding of "the other", Cultivating relationships and Understanding the religious dimensions of the conflict” (Arab-Israeli Relations n. d) should be addressed first before making an effort to recognize Palestine. US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters that the United States had no choice but to halt funding, and said the vote was "regrettable, premature and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East." The vote would, said David Killion, US ambassador to Unesco, "complicate" Washington's efforts to support the body, but insisted that the US remained "deeply committed" to the institution and would seek alternative ways to fund it. Israel, which voted against the motion, accused the Palestinians of taking a counterproductive step that will change nothing on the ground, while moving a peace agreement further out of reach (Macintire, 2011). America and its allies including Israel condemned UNESCO’s decision to recognize Palestine even though UNESCO’s decision got huge mandates. In fact 107 member countries voted in favor of UNESCO’s decision whereas only 14 members voted against it. Even though 52 countries stayed away from voting, majority of those countries support UNESCO’s decisions morally. Such countries do not want to displease United States at this juncture since it is the sole super power in the world at present. The above voting pattern clearly suggests that America is losing support in global bodies and their explanations and opinions are no more acceptable to other countries. America knows this fact very well, so they wanted to put an end to it and that is why went ahead with drastic measures such as prohibition of funding to UNESCO. Another reason for America’s decision could be the ongoing financial problems in America because of global recession. It should be noted that America was one of the major sufferers of global recession. Countries like India, China, Korea etc escaped from recession problems without many injuries whereas America is still struggling to come out of it. America wanted to cut down its expenditure on non-productive sectors at any cost in order to solve the current recession problems. Financial assistance to international bodies such as UNESCO is not much productive for America at present. America earlier assisted these bodies financially to get more support to their policies. However, they are failing to do so in recent times. In short, financial problems in America coupled with their inability to attract global support on policy matters, forced America to take drastic measures such as the stoppage of funding to UNESCO. Conclusions America publicly declared that they are putting an embargo on financial aids to UNESCO because of the existing laws in America which prevent them from financially assisting any state or organization which has disputed status. However, it is well known to others that America is trying to dictate UN bodies at any cost because of their awareness that they are losing support among international community over the Israel – Palestine issue. The recent financial crisis could be another reason which forced America to withdraw support to UNESCO. In short, the declared reasons for withdrawing support to UNESCO by America are far away from reality. References Avineri S. (2001). A Realistic U.S. Role in the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Retrieved from http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=866 Cornwell S. (2011). U.S. stops UNESCO funding over Palestinian vote. Reuters. Oct 31, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/us-palestinians-unesco-usa-funding-idUSTRE79U5ED20111031 Lynch C. (2011). UNESCO votes to admit Palestine; U.S. cuts off funding. The Washington Post. October 31, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/unesco-votes-to-admit-palestine-over-us-objections/2011/10/31/gIQAMleYZM_story.html Macintire D. (2011). US cuts Unesco funding over Palestinian support. The Independent. 01 November 2011. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-cuts-unesco-funding-over-palestinian-support-6255541.html Shannon V.P.(2003) Balancing Act: Us Foreign Policy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (U.S. Foreign Policy and Conflict in the Islamic World) Ashgate Publishing (August 2003) Arab-Israeli Relations (n.d). United States Institute of Peace Retrieved from http://www.usip.org/arab_israeli/ Whitbeck J. V. The Palestinian State Exists, The Palestine –Israel journal Vol.3 No.2 1996 Retrieved from http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=544 Read More