News

UNESCO vote shows the US and Israel represent the 1% against the 99% of world opinion

Phyllis Bennis writing in Salon about the UNESCO Palestine vote:

Apparently the U.S. made the judgment that stiffing the organization, risking the likelihood of being kicked out on its unilateralist behind, is a price worth paying – to make the unsurprising political point that Washington is not happy about Palestinian statehood on any terms other than its own. Palestine’s right to membership in this particular world body means UNESCO can make the determination that Palestine, rather its occupying power Israel, has the right to nominate World Heritage Sites in its own territory, such as the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. It may not be the “independent and sovereign Palestinian state” the U.S. claims it supports – but it certainly helps achieve a few of Palestine’s long-denied rights. And the 20 years of U.S.-controlled “peace process” has produced nothing for Palestinians except a tripling of illegal Israeli settlers on their land – certainly nothing remotely resembling a Palestinian state.

The decision to withhold the dues was in the interest of the foreign policy 1 percent — Israel and its most hard-line supporters in the U.S. – not in the interest of the rest of us. In fact there are potentially hazardous consequences ahead for a lot of us, including some of those most of the time part of the 1 percent. Because achieving full membership in UNESCO is only the first step in the broader Palestinian plan at the UN.

Other organizations will follow – and one of the first is likely to be WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization. WIPO is hardly a household word but it is an important entity. WIPO figures out how to protect patents, royalty arrangements and trademarks, so not only cultural workers but the biggest high-tech industries have a huge investment there too. That’s why the Obama administration convened a high-power meeting of corporate giants – Google, Microsoft, Apple and others – the day before the UNESCO vote, to see if they might have ideas to get out of the impasse.

It’s complicated, because this isn’t just a political decision by the administration to cut the funding. Congress passed specific legislation, dating back to 1991 and 1994, requiring the U.S. government to do just that – to withhold funds from any UN agency that recognizes Palestine on an equal basis with other states. And those laws didn’t include the kind of presidential waiver congress often adds when they know they’re passing really stupid resolutions that are just for domestic political consumption. Like every year when members of Congress demand that the U.S. move its Israeli embassy to Jerusalem – something no country in the world does– they always include language that says “unless the President certifies that keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv is in the national security interest of the United States.” That’s the out.

Who pays the price?

This time, there’s no obvious out. The problem is that if the United States has to leave WIPO, a lot of powerful corporations are going to be very unhappy. After WIPO, which UN agencies will be next to be de-funded? Will it be the International Atomic Energy Agency, on whose reports U.S. strategists rely to figure out Iran’s nuclear power program? If an IAEA member state doesn’t pay its dues, will it still have access to the agency’s classified reports? Will it be the World Health Organization, leaving the U.S. Centers for Disease Control outside of the global collaborations it depends on to fight the spread of devastating diseases?

And that’s all just talking about what affects the U.S. and Americans directly. What happens to children – the world’s children, living across the impoverished global South – when UNICEF loses 22 percent of its budget? UNICEF is probably the most popular UN agency in the United States – will this year’s Halloween trick-or-treat Pennies for UNICEF campaign mark the last U.S. money to support the children’s fund?

There has rarely been a clearer example of domestic politics – in this case influence of the pro-Israel lobbies – undermining national interests. Senator Lindsay Graham, one of the most influential Republicans on foreign policy, said “There’s a lot of bipartisan support for cutting off funding to any political U.N. organization that would do this. What you are going to do is eventually lose congressional support for our participation in the United Nations. That’s what’s at risk here. That would be a great loss.” But while claiming to recognize U.S. interests in the UN agencies, Graham still plans to introduce a Senate resolution calling for withdrawal from UNESCO – or any other UN agency recognizing Palestine on an equal basis. Graham is known as the most pro-UN among Republicans (admittedly a low bar). Yet as The Cable reported, “when it comes to the issue of Palestinian recognition, the politics just don’t allow any room for compromise, he said.”

16 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Does the Nonproliferation Treaty oblige the U.S. to participate in the IAEA?

“There has rarely been a clearer example of domestic politics – in this case influence of the pro-Israel lobbies – undermining national interests.”

same can be said for canada…

Good analysis. The important thing here, one hopes, is that the oligarchy that controls USA policy and governance is (at least as to I/P) single-minded: the various BIGs either care a really lot about Israel (BIG ZION, BIG ARMAMENTS) or don’t care at all. So the 1% is — in effect — aligned together on this. SO FAR. Now there may be fissures and crumbling and elements of the 1% may see that their interests require combating BIG ZION here. So I hope.

Be fun to be a fly on the board-room walls.

Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street has weighed in, excoriating US for cutting UNESCO funding.

Principled, right?
Wrong.

Ben Ami is not concerned with the “lost”ness of the US move; Ben Ami is worried that US might go on to defund IAEA, in which case, Israel’s favorite tarbaby, Iran, might not be so readily beaten with a stick.

Under the ironic caption, “Tell Congress: Stop the insanity,” J Street sent out an email blast that said:

U.S. threats to cut funding clearly don’t prevent the Palestinians from applying for or gaining membership in UNESCO and other bodies.

The only impact is on the United States – damaging its credibility and international standing – and on the people whose services will be cut because Congress thinks this is how best to be pro-Israel.

We don’t see it this way: Congress should change the law that automatically cuts funding to international institutions that admit the Palestinians as a member. Will you join us in sending this important message?
. . .
It’s one thing for the U.S. to oppose the Palestinian application for membership in the UN and its affiliates. There is vigorous and legitimate debate over whether UNESCO membership helps or hurts the prospects of a two-state solution. However, it seems irrational for the U.S. to respond by cutting aid to worthy projects and causes the world over

Friends of Israel are justifiably wary of the UN’s legacy of institutional bias against Israel. And of course, problems from bureaucracy to inefficiency plague its work at times.

But much good is done as well. Friends of Israel have worked with the UN to advance the status of women. We’ve urged more not less UN action in Darfur. And we want the IAEA actively working to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.

But now, because Palestine may become a member, we’re willing to put these and other important goals at risk?

Well, be careful what you wish for, Jeremy. It may be that IAEA, should it remain a supported part of UN, will grow a pair and demand that Israel come clean on its nuclear weapons.

THAT would be the best of all responses to the question Michele Steinberg addressed to a panel at a Middle East Policy Council forum in July 2010

I am Michele Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review. . . . it is in my view the most immediate danger that we face as a foreign policy issue and might be the highest priority, which is what do we do here in the United States to ward off a potential unilateral Israeli strike against Iran?

I have to disagree with the comment that this has left the lexicon of Israeli policymakers. – while maybe openly, but certainly not behind the scenes. I draw everyone’s attention to two big articles in the Times of London in the last year, complete with maps, what air routes will be taken, submarine capabilities, et cetera, which quotes a myriad of Israeli high policy sources that say we are ready, we are able and we are in the process of convincing the United States to go along with this.

I feared this for a long time since I read “Clean Break” back in 1996, which called for regime change in Iraq and then Iraq. And I fear it more now after hearing Netanyahu’s interview while he was here and that everything is on the table. And it’s been reinforced by some of the things that Mr. Indyk has said. So what can we do to ward off an Israeli strike against Iran from a United States standpoint?

One thing’s for sure, Ms. Steinberg — and Mr. Ben Ami: A US Congress that was “insane” enough to bow and curtsey to Bibi Netanyahu is NOT the body that will resolve your fears.