Understanding the United States' relationship with UNESCO and Next Steps with the Incoming Administration
Despite being one of the early signatories to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) constitution in 1946,[1] the United States has not had a long-standing convivial relationship with the organization, with much of the source of this contention stemming from an “anti-Israel bias.”[2]
The relationship between the United States and the United Nations as a whole is an important one, as it demonstrates how the United States intends to center its foreign policy strategy. Furthermore, the volatility of this relationship can be exemplified by the United States’ repeated incomings and outgoings as a Member State and dangling of the proverbial monetary carrot over the last fifty years. The United States most recently rejoined UNESCO in 2023, six years after the Trump Administration orchestrated its withdrawal. The Trump Administration in its return to the White House is likely to once again distance the United States from the international community by way of wielding withdrawal or pausing funding as a matter of strategy. Hopefully, the development of the United States-UNESCO relationship and the impact of these policy decisions will dissuade the Administration from revisiting the past and thus negatively impacting important educational and cultural programs.
UNESCO was formed in 1945 following the end of World War II with the express goal of “building a culture of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication, and information.”[3] Sponsored projects vary under the UNESCO umbrella, including measures to improve literacy, promote freedom of the press, preserve cultural history, and most notably, establish World Heritage Sites across the globe.[4]
In 1974, Congress froze payments to UNESCO after the organization recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization and adopted a resolution to withhold cultural aid to Israel due to its “persistence in altering the historical features of Jerusalem by undertaking excavations which constitute a danger to its monuments.”[5] The organization’s relationship with the U.S. and Israel has remained contentious ever since, as they allege the organization improperly applies the Hague Convention, “which lacks binding enforceability” and “the status of customary international law.” This is especially concerning, in consideration of the fact that the United States is the agency’s primary source of funding.[6]
During the 1990s, United States Congress passed two pieces of legislation prohibiting funding to U.N. entities that provide full membership to parties that do not possess “internationally recognized attributes” of statehood, and specifically any entity that seeks to admit the Palestine Liberation Organization as a member.[7] These restrictions can be waived, however, by the Secretary of State, so long as the Secretary demonstrates that national security interests necessitate doing so.[8]
The U.S. first withdrew from the convention in 1984, accusing the organization of mismanaging finances, unsuitable leftward politics, and distaste for the sizable and supposedly undue input by developing nations in policymaking decisions that went against the United States’ interests.[9] In 2002, the United States announced plans to formally rejoin the agency. Congress authorized paying $60 million owed in dues in 2001. The Bush Administration supported the return in consideration of a “commitment to Human Dignity.”[10] The move came in the wake of the United States’ war on terror in the Middle East with bilateral congressional support, as lawmakers and officials hoped the renewed participation would promote international dialogue and cooperation.[11]
During the Obama Administration, funding was once again paused after UNESCO admitted Palestine as a Member State in 2011.[12] Republican House leaders, who had the majority at the time, relied upon the latent 1990s legislation. The Obama Administration requested on multiple occasions that Congress waive the funding prohibitions laid out in Public Law 101-246 and 103-236 and maintain the United States’ position as an active Member State within the agency.
As a U.N. observer, however, the United States still voted against resolutions they deemed as “disproportionately targeting Israel.”[13] Congress was not agreeable to the Obama Administration’s efforts to continue fulfilling its financial obligations to the organization and soon the United States lost its ability to vote within the agency, and therefore the ability to further its foreign policy goals.[14]
As a result of this political and financial power play, UNESCO and its operations were thrust into a “financial crisis,” forcing organizational leadership to adapt by drawing back on staff and programs, and Member States to fill in the massive budgetary gaps.[15]
United States announced its second withdrawal from UNESCO in 2017 under the Trump Administration, once again citing mismanagement of finances as the catalyst; however, the issue of sanctions against Israel remained the undertone.[16] In the wake of the United States’ notable absence from the agency, China ascended to influence, leading programs aimed at “strengthen[ing] higher technical education in Africa, enhance[ing] STEM education, and safeguard[ing] cultural heritage.[17] U.S. officials saw China’s ascension within the agency and its influence in “UNESCO policymaking” concerning and problematic.[18]
When President Biden committed to rejoining UNESCO and resuming payments to “counter Chinese Influence” in 2023, the United States accrued $619 million in unpaid arrears. Readmission was also contingent upon committing 22% of the organization’s annual budget and sponsoring programs intended to support “education access initiatives in Africa, Holocaust remembrance, and journalists’ safety.”[19]
The United States, as a permanent member to the United Nations Security Council and the largest donor to the United Nations’ budget, is clearly no stranger to utilizing this influence to advance its foreign policy goals and strategy. The results of the 2024 General Election therefore leave questions as to the future of the United States’ relationship with UNESCO, as the United States just recently resumed financial commitments to pay back the arrears accrued. The intention the incoming Administration sets regarding its relevant foreign policy goals will therefore be extremely important to monitor, as it could greatly impact the work agencies like UNESCO are able to accomplish, especially as the wars in Sudan and Gaza continue to threaten the protection of cultural heritage in those regions.[20] This post contends that it is therefore in the best interest of the Trump Administration to continue to honor the United States’ renewed financial commitment set forth by the Biden Administration.
Donyea James is a staff member of Fordham International Law Journal Volume XLVIII.
[1] See Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Nov. 16, 1945, 4 U.N.T.S. 275, 300.
[2] Eli Rosenberg & Carol Morello, U.S. withdraws from UNESCO, the U.N.’s cultural organization, citing anti-Israel bias, Wash. Post (Oct. 12, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/12/u-s-withdraws-from-unesco-the-u-n-s-cultural-organization-citing-anti-israel-bias/.
[3] See UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, United Nations, https://www.un.org/youthenvoy/2013/08/unesco-united-nations-educational-scientific-and-cultural-organization/.
[4] See Our expertise, UNESCO, https://www.unesco.org/en/expertise; see also World Heritage, UNESCO, https://whc.unesco.org/en/about/; Key Challenges, UNESCO, https://www.unesco.org/en/key-challenges.
[5] UNESCO Adopts Resolution to Deny Israel Cultural Aid, N.Y. Times (Nov. 21, 1974) https://www.nytimes.com/1974/11/21/archives/unesco-adopts-resolution-to-deny-israel-cultural-aid.html.; see also Joanne Omang, UNESCO Withdrawal Announced, Wash. Post (Dec. 19, 1984), https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/20/unesco-withdrawal-announced/b9c6dc92-a31f-443a-977b-f3468faf44fe/.
[6] Michael Dumper & Craig Larkin, UNESCO and Jerusalem: Constraints, Challenges and Opportunities, Jerusalem Q. (2009), https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/202656.
[7] Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994-1995, Pub. L. No. 103-236, § 410, 108 Stat. 382, 454; see Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990-1991, Pub. L. No. 101-246, § 414, 104 Stat. 15, 70.
[8] See Louisa Blanchfield & Marjorie Ann Browne, Membership in the United Nations and Its Specialized Agencies, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R43614, at 12 (2014).
[9] See Joanne Omang, UNESCO Withdrawal Announced, Wash. Post (Dec. 19, 1984), https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/12/20/unesco-withdrawal-announced/b9c6dc92-a31f-443a-977b-f3468faf44fe/.
[10] Fact Sheet, United States Rejoins UNESCO, The White House (Sep. 12, 2002), https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-4.html.
[11] See Jason Edward Kaufman, The U.S. rejoins Unesco, analysis suggests the organisation being used as an extension of US foreign policy, as part of the ongoing 'war on terror', Art Newspaper (May 31, 2003), https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2003/06/01/the-us-rejoins-unesco-analysis-suggests-the-organisation-being-used-as-an-extension-of-us-foreign-policy-as-part-of-the-ongoing-war-on-terror.
[12] Jim Lobe, U.S. halts UNESCO funding (Nov. 1, 2011), https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2011/11/1/us-halts-unesco-funding.
[13] See Louisa Blanchfield, U.S. Withdrawal from the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN10802, at 2 (2017).
[14] See Rosenberg, supra note 4.
[15] See generally Klaus Hüfner, Special Issue Article: The Financial Crisis of UNESCO after 2011: Political Reactions and Organizational Consequences, 8 Global Pol’y J. 96, 96–100 (2017).
[16] See Press Release, Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Haley on the United States’ Withdrawal from UNESCO (Oct. 12, 2017), https://il.usembassy.gov/press-release-ambassador-haley-united-states-withdrawal-unesco/; Rosenberg & Morella, supra note 4.
[17] See UNESCO-China Partnership, UNESCO, https://www.unesco.org/en/partnerships/china.
[18] Angela Charlton & Matthew Lee, US decides to rejoin UNESCO and pay back dues, to counter Chinese influence, Associated Press (Jun. 12, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/unesco-us-rejoin-palestine-china-5b7849bd2cae966e4e9837380c0c094f.
[19] Edward Helmore, U.S. set to rejoin Unesco after leaving during Trump presidency, Guardian (Jul. 1, 2023), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/01/us-set-to-rejoin-unesco-after-leaving-during-trump-presidency; Joe Hernandez, The U.S. says it wants to rejoin UNESCO after exiting during the Trump administration, NPR (Jun. 12, 2023), https://www.npr.org/2023/06/12/1181687608/united-states-unesco-return-membership-funding.
[20] See generally Garry Shaw, Sudan’s cultural heritage is threatened to an 'unprecedented level', Unesco says, Art Newspaper (Sep. 27, 2024), https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/09/27/sudans-cultural-heritage-is-threatened-to-an-unprecedented-level-unesco-says; Ephrat Livni, New Israeli Settlement in West Bank Would Encroach on World Heritage Site, Activists Say, N.Y. Times (Aug. 15, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/15/world/middleeast/israel-west-bank-settlement.html.
This is a student blog post and in no way represents the views of the Fordham International Law Journal.