The United States withdraws from UNESCO
state.gov584 points by layer8 16 hours ago
584 points by layer8 16 hours ago
1984: U.S. withdraws. 2003: U.S. rejoins. 2011: U.S. stops paying dues after Palestine joins. 2017: U.S. announces withdrawal (effective end of 2018). 2023: U.S. rejoins, pledges to repay dues. 2025: U.S announces withdrawal
Seems to be a revolving door
They're getting ready to bomb Iran's UNESCO sites. They did bomb several UNESCO sites in Yugoslavia and other places while they left. Their boy Grossi also told the whole world that there is a big target on a UNESCO site a short while back.
Which site in Yugoslavia did they bomb?
NATO bombings damaged a Kosovo (post Yugoslavia) church in 1999 that was later added to UNESCO in 2006
History mismatch/Mandela effect? Some of the bombed sites were already known as culturally significant but not recognized by unesco yet, like Novi Sad that became a unesco creative city in 2023.
Makes me wonder if officials at UNESCO even cares about the decision. "Oh that again?" Probably already used to this.
Similar to the Israeli ambassador being recalled from Dublin. They mean it as a big dramatic statement but they've done it that many times it's lost all significance.
She only gets reinstated again for the purpose of making another dramatic exit.
They always send their most incompetent ambassadors to Dublin, ones that put their foot in their own mouth.
I suppose looking at it from the Israeli government's perspective, Ireland is a very safe place for Israelis and Jewish people in general, but the public and government are vocal on Israel's actions and there's no defence/intelligence links between the two countries. Trade links are on the European level.
There'll never be a reason for them to send a skilled diplomat, so may as well send a shit stirrer who's only good for causing controversy.
They’re never happy about the loss of money. For UN institutions, the US usually contributes a theoretical cap of about 22% but in real terms I think it’s more like a quarter of their annual budget or a little over in some cases. When we’re not paying, that’s a lot of money that UNESCO isn’t getting.
Predictably, if/when China becomes the premier funder of UN organizations, there will be a lot of grousing about it by US politicians. The amount of soft-power being trashed is astounding
We’re the ones seeking to cap our contributions. The formula currently doesn’t allow for any one country to pay more than 22% with America the only one actually paying that much, save for the institutions we’ve cut off. For UN peacekeeping we’re actually assessed at 27% but Congress capped that to 25% back in 1993.
https://betterworldcampaign.org/us-funding-for-the-un/un-bud...
If any other country wants to step in and fill the gap, I don’t think Congress will care.
Eh china finances a ton of members, who better vote in line as debtors should
If you abandon it completely something else might rise up - but funding/participating only up to a point, it works to suppress it - see Ukraine aid policies aswell
Look at the years, and see how they match up with the administration in power...
Tbf, if you remove the Biden 2023 pledge, the rest makes sense:
In the two decades between 1984 and 2003, UNESCO implemented a number of reforms in management+transparency+politicization, and the U.S. returned.
Then Palestine was admitted, and the U.S. left.
Cycle of politician appeasing their genocidal masters until the government start to realize what that means exactly at which point we pull back to humanity.
Obama withdrew all US funds from UNESCO in 2011 as well, due to Palestine being admitted in. This isn't anything particularly noteworthy, just more capitulating to Israel, which is annoying.
"In 2011, the United States stopped funding Unesco because of what was then a forgotten, 15-year-old amendment mandating a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts Palestine as a full member. Various efforts by President Barack Obama to overturn the legal restriction narrowly failed in Congress, and the United States lost its vote at the organization after two years of nonpayment, in 2013."
https://web.archive.org/web/20220503183152/https://www.nytim...
> 15-year-old amendment mandating a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts Palestine as a full member
As a non-American, doesn't this seem a little ridiculous to some people in the US? This screams of a kind of melodramatic, overdone theatrics that the US doesn't seem to do to anyone else. I get that the US has a lot of Israeli money/investments/customers and extremely religious people, but even then, why is it going this far to enshrine their relations to specific states in their laws? It ends up coming off as the US bowing on their knees to relatively minor nations on the other side of the world.
Not really? The US does its diplomacy substantially by shuffling money around. Writing a conditional into law is how a legislative body expresses a formal commitment. That's business as usual.
The continued existence of these particular laws in 2011 was, in any case, more a convenient excuse to do something they didn't not want to do anyway, than something that couldn't be changed if political will went the other way. It's just a bit stronger of a commitment than the sitting president's whim, which is also a thing that happens.
Perhaps the disconnect is that the US actively engages in foreign policy at all?
> melodramatic, overdone theatrics that the US doesn't seem to do to anyone else
Iran and North Korea. China with Taiwan. This is deeply precedented geopolitical drama.
> It ends up coming off as the US bowing on their knees to relatively minor nations
If Israel and Palestine are your issue, of course. (Everything will tend to be. This is just how pet causes and the availability heuristic work.) If not, it doesn’t.
Sorry, I don't think I articulated the main point of what makes the 'theatrics' seem like such to me. It's not just about putting things about international relations into law - most countries do that in regards to war, economics, immigration, etc. It's that this whole 'punishment' is contingent on something so seemingly minor as UN membership (a.k.a. state recognition?). People hate Iran and North Korea, but I don't think many are arguing for them to be expelled from the UN outright. No sensible person does business with the Taliban's Afghanistan, but it's not like people are saying that Afghanistan is no longer a country. I don't even think this stance ("we will not back an entity that recognizes Palestine in this way") extends to any other countries with limited recognition, but correct me if I'm wrong.
> If Israel and Palestine are your issue, of course. (Everything will tend to be. This is just how pet causes and the availability heuristic work.)
Despite the very-not-subtle-dig at me, this war isn't the most important war for me right now, and it's not one I'm too informed on, given just how much background and historical baggage there is to the Israel/Palestine relationship.
> that this whole 'punishment' is contingent on something so seemingly minor as UN membership (a.k.a. state recognition?)
If the battle lines are on recognition, that's where the fight will be. Once a country is broadly recognised, it's a moot point. (We don't recognise the governments in Tehran, Havana and Caracas, for example.)
> People hate Iran and North Korea, but I don't think many are arguing for them to be expelled from the UN outright
The best analogy is Beijing vis-à-vis Taiwan. Not only does Beijing not recognise Taipei, it also punishes countries and multi-lateral organisations who do.
In this was recognition is analogised to secondary sanctions, and it's something that's been done since the dawn of civilisation.
In the context of the US, is recognizing a government different from recognizing a country? Is a refusal to deal with Taliban functionally equivalent to not recognizing Afghanistan at all?
> The best analogy is Beijing vis-à-vis Taiwan. Not only does Beijing not recognise Taipei, it also punishes countries and multi-lateral organisations who do.
This is a close analogy, but the important distinction here is that the PRC is the claimant to the ROC, so they have a straightforward and very strong motivation to thwart their recognition at all costs, as to avoid delegitimizing their own claims on it. The US, on the other hand, is a complete third party to either Israel or Palestine. They have interests and goals in the area, but nothing nearly as extreme as China's situation. That's what makes this situation so unique to me, it seems so disproportional of a reaction for a country that's not a party in the war. It makes sense if Israel does it, but the US?
> In the context of the US, is recognizing a government different from recognizing a country?
In the context of anyone, it depends on what changed. The Iranian Revolution changed Iran's government but not borders or existence. Kosovo, on the other hand, created both a new government and a new state.
> the important distinction here is that the PRC is the claimant to the ROC, so they have a straightforward and very strong motivation to thwart their recognition at all costs, as to avoid delegitimizing their own claims on it. The US, on the other hand, is a complete third party to either Israel or Palestine
Direct versus indirect. Go back to the Cold War (or perhaps more accurately, decolonisation) and the USSR and U.S. were doing this by proxy, too. (And everyone was doing it, almost out of necessity, during the world wars.)
My point is this sort of posturing is deeply precedented when geopolitical maps change because the loser has nothing to lose and something to gain from holding off recognition of whatever just changed. (Even if that gain is just not having to deal with it right now.)
If you want a more-direct example, it would be Pakistan supporting Beijing over its claims over Arunachal Pradesh. Pakistan does this because India is its enemy and China its ally. In the Middle East, Iran is America's enemy and Israel its ally. What the people in Arunachal Pradesh or Palestine think about the matter sort of gets swept under the rug. (Or Beijing giving lip service or North Korea and Iran arms to support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, if you want to rule out the size influence factor.)
Clearly Palestine is as big a threat to the US as China.
> Clearly Palestine is as big a threat to the US as China
Kosovo isn't a threat to Brazil or Madagascar [1].
Countries grant, withhold and withdraw recognition for a variety of reasons.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_K...
Not really. It's just the way it works here. If it's enshrined in law, it makes it harder for one person or small group to make a unilateral decision, similar to how things are happening here now.
I think it has more to do with terrorism and anti-Western sentiment than with religion.
I expect the same treatment for Iran and North Korea.
There is also a US law banning military aid to Israel since they have nukes outside of the NPT. Pakistan got an exception after a deal with their cooperation in the war on Terror.
Obama didn't do anything (other than follow the law at the time):
https://web.archive.org/web/20141224180231/https://foreignpo...
Sure, it was a Democrat president enforcing laws passed by a Democrat-controlled House and Senate in 1990 and 1994, under at least one Democrat president.
There are no real "sides" when it comes to the U.S. and Israel. Every party bends the knee and kisses the wall. It’s one big club, and we’re not in it.
> It’s one big club, and we’re not in it.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply here, but like it or not, most Americans do support Israel.
Most American evangelicals support Israel. I'm not so sure if the rest of the remaining Americans also support Israel.
According to Gallup the majority of the US public supports Israel over Palestine, just as it has for decades. It's now "at it's lowest in 25 years" but it's still 46% vs 33% for Palestine, down from around 60% pro Israel in prior years.
https://thecradle.co/articles/us-popular-support-for-israel-...
About 10% of Americans identify as evangelical protestants
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/how-many-evangelicals-...
That drops quite bad for Israel though if means more Americans wouldn't mind cutting off support for them.
A lot more Americans support helping Ukraine.
> According to Gallup the majority of the US public supports Israel over Palestine
Gotta love you turning this into a concept similar to "which sports team do you support more". Following your link, the actual question is "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?". which has a lot different nuance (nuance? Oh wait I forget where I am...)
This is one dimension. Another is Dem/Rep. But another, that doesn't get enough attention, is the generational one:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/02/younger-a...
> Most American evangelicals support Israel
Most American boomers support Israel.
Most American voters in almost every demo see the Israeli people favourably. Per your source, a majority of 18 to 49-year olds leaning Democrat see Palestinians favourably. But even in those demos, 42 to 56% see the Israeli people favourably, too.
Outside those demos, the advantage to Israelis is significant enough to drown that partisan youthful signal everywhere but in local primaries where there are large numbers of young Democrats. (Support for Israelis is dropping. But support for Palestinians is lower.)
The dimension that doesn’t get attention is that most Americans don’t care about foreign policy. They may have views. But they won’t vote on them.
On specific issues, perhaps. (such as against Hamas)
Overall, it seems that support is waning. (46% according to Gallup)
https://news.gallup.com/poll/657404/less-half-sympathetic-to...
But even fewer support Palestine, which is what the UNESCO policy is about.
Just like how Ted Cruz believes that Bible says that they have to defend Israel. Now if you ask him where exactly in Bible?
He will deflect because his Bible is the American Evangelicals. So much for separation of state and religion.
That's no longer true, nor should it be:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/04/08/how-ameri...
From the article:
>The public’s views of Israel have turned more negative over the past three years. More than half of U.S. adults (53%) now express an unfavorable opinion of Israel, up from 42% in March 2022
> It turns out when you invade a country and commit a genocide, you become less popular.
Well, Israel's been committing a genocide for, conservatively, nearly 60 years, so, yeah, its probably a suprise to them that after that long of not having an adverse effect on US public support, that has changed.
Ah yes, the genocide where the people being genocided continue to outpace the population growth of the nation doing the genocide. The ethnic cleansing where the only time it happens is to remove Jews from an area. The apartheid where the “subjugated” sit on the Supreme Court, have 10+ seats in parliament (which matches voting demographics), were recently part of the majority, and share all the same rights as their supposed oppressors.
The same state which is right now defending another people from an actual genocide being carried out by self proclaimed jehadis in Syria, and the Druze are now begging to be annexed by Israel.
Literally anyone who makes any claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing or most hysterically, “apartheid” outs themselves as a complete ignoramus of the region, history and reality and is openly declaring their bigotry.
>most Americans do support Israel
This is just not true. Most Americans are actually unaware how much influence Israel and its lobby has over our politicians and are also mostly unaware of what is actually happening over there.
There is a set of evangelical Christians who have misinterpreted a passage in the book of Genesis to mean that blessing the tribe of Israel means sending unlimited weapons to the modern nation state of Israel. But that is not even close to the majority of Americans.
Excuses and explanations can feel the same. I do not intend this to be an excuse, but a partial explanation. Before the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, there was a feeling of a possibility of peace in some form; in this context, those laws could be viewed as the stick of a carrot and stick approach.
At this point in time, you can make your own determination about how that has worked out.
Did you... look up the override votes that failed in 2011 to see what the partisan breakdown was?
I know it makes you feel good to imagine a world of enemies, and "every party bends the knee and kiss the wall" is some top notch imagery. But in the real world you have allies in this particular fight, and working against them is in fact doing the opposite of what you claim to want.
So would it be fair to say that this is just a reiteration of a 30+ year-long trend.
Edit: 40+ year-long trend?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44648359
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000012506323&seq=...
The is a good point: the decision was made by Congress, not by Obama. Although I disagree with that decision, that is the correct way to make it. Now, Trump is withdrawing unilaterally, without Congressional approval.
Remember when presidents followed the law?
I've been complaining about the increasing power being ceded to the Presidency, like, forever now. This isn't specifically a GOP or DEM thing, it's been happening consistently at least since FDR, and probably even beyond that.
That said, the one area where the Constitution really does give the President a fairly free hand is in foreign policy.
And congress increasingly wanting to do nothing.
I think it's a little more subtle. It's not that they want to do nothing. It's that they're terrified of being seen to have done something, if for some reason that thing turns out to be a mistake.
For all the talk about wanting to do things scientifically, there's a remarkable lack of willingness to actually experiment. If a failed experiment is fatal, then we'll never do anything, bad or good.
You seem to be conflating two things. That Obama was bound by law to withhold funds, and that the president cannot leave UNESCO unilaterally. The president in fact can just withdraw as the commander in chief and head of foreign policy, and they have withdrawn already in 1984 (Reagan) and 2017 (Trump).
I really wish we weren't a puppet state of Israel. What they're doing in Palestine currently turns my stomach. It's one thing to get your people back after the horrible attack from Hamas, it's another to mow down people who are just trying to get food with a submachine gun.
> mow down people who are just trying to get food with a submachine gun
not to mention that Hamas was supposed already destroyed 6 months ago
The US is complicit in the intentional starvation of gaza’s people by israel. At least 15 people have starved to death in the last 24 hours, including an infant.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-gaza-war-hunger-childre...
Ragequitting UNESCO over their recognition of palestine is a small part of the project of supporting the ethnic cleansing of gaza and the west bank.
This must be the UN headquarters. Flags everywhere.
For whatever reason, the Palestine/Israel conflict causes people to just stop being rational. Like, the facts are there, both parties attack each other as part of the conflict throughout history, but for whatever reason, people really want to pick sides on this one, and Im not sure why.
Its not the genocide aspect - there are other genocides that are happening (Myanmar for example) that don't cause this reaction. Don't think its anti antisemitism either, as you don't see a lot of narratives that come with traditional rhetoric of that type.
Whoever is pushing media out on this is must have figured something out in the format to make people this polarized.
Nobody has been able to explain to me how the Israel/Palestine issue is fundamentally different from the Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo issue of the 1990s. Its weird the mental gymnastics people will go through to qualify any position in either of these events.
Its very fundamentally different.
Palestine is used as a proxy by Iran to essentially wage war on Israel, because or a lack of better term, they are still salty about a different religious group being on "their" land (and to be accurate, was technically taken from them, but it was because they were on the losing side of WW1)
But Iran cannot engage in war directly, as they would be seen as aggressors.
Israel on the other hand is forced into basically a lose/lose/lose situation. Its either suck it up and wait for Oct 7 part deux to happen, be genocided themselves if one state is implemented, or be seen as the bad guys in pushing further and further, hoping to take over enough land to make the former 2 not an issue.
I call bullshit. If you use your imagine hard enough then just maybe you could explain the military action in Gaza as warfare… but how does that extend to the West Bank? There is no warfare in the West Bank, but there Israeli settlers murdering Palestinians without consequences while stealing land in illegal settlements.
> Israel is forced
Again, that’s bullshit. Nobody is forcing Israel to be an asshole to their neighbors. Israel was the victim in 1967, nearly 60 years. It’s not 1967 anymore. A universal rule of life is if you don’t want people to think of you as an asshole then start by not being an asshole, not with a bunch of excuses and sad equivocations.
I suspect Israel would try much harder to be less of a belligerent asshole if they were placed on a weapons embargo. Israel is often seen as the bad guy, because their actions make them the bad guy.
If Israel really didn’t want Iran to use the Palestinian people as a puppet they could solve the problem by not giving the Palestinian people cause to be puppets. For example, Iran would lose all political influence around Israel if Israel annexed the Palestinian people with rights, protections, and citizenship.
I really don’t think Israel wants this issue solved. I really think it’s about tribalism and conquest. That’s I cannot see any difference between Israel/Palestine and Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo. It’s all sociopathic tribalism with lots of military aggression against civilians while claiming to be victims.
The major difference is Israel is one of the only modern states that cannot and will not extend citizenship and property rights to the majority of people under their control who existed there when the nation was founded because it would upend the ethnic makeup of the country. They will also not allow the creation of a state for those people, forcing them to be stateless.
None of that applies in Serbia / Bosnia / Kosovo, as far as I can tell. That is more like a separatist movement situation like what you see in Kurdistan, Kashmir, etc.
> there are other genocides that are happening (Myanmar for example) that don't cause this reaction
Because the biggest world superpower that claims to be all about "freedom" is the sponsor of this one, not a rogue, sanctioned state somewhere
[flagged]
A big difference is that in 2022, an estimated five million Ukrainian refugees fled to other parts of Europe - which is more than twice as large as Gaza's entire population. Similarly, many Syrians fled the war there.
We could ask why there aren't more Palestinian refugees who fled to other countries? As far as I can tell, leaving Gaza is very difficult, and nobody really talks about making it easier.
it's not that it's hard to leave gaza. it's just nobody willing to accept gazans. and trumps plan that talks about voluntary migration out of gaza is been described as genocide and ethnic cleansing (btw, 75% of them actually registered as refugees by unrwa for past many decades)
i never saw anybody been against migration of population out of war zone to safety. in case of ukrainian refugees it was widely discussed that people need to get to safety and entire europe helped.
> it's not that it's hard to leave gaza. it's just nobody willing to accept gazans.
Isn't it both? I'm not an expert on this by any means, but it seems like anyone who's born on that land will find it almost impossible to leave. Both countries that have land borders with Gaza will usually not admit locals, except in very few exceptions. Even someone trying to transit through Israel to other countries would probably not be able to. Their sea and airspace, things that are seen in other countries as open windows to the rest of the world, are controlled by Israel. And their own government sometimes acts to prevent people from leaving. So, even if some countries accepted their refugees, I don't see how an average Gazan would be able to get there. It's not quite North Korea-level of difficulty, but it's up there.
around 100k gazans left through egypt in last 2 years. they needed to pay bribes to egyptian officials.
when israel after trump announcement said that idf will help people (who want to leave) to leave through israel, everybody screamed that it's literally proof that israel executes genocide and ethnic cleansing
typically to be refugee you need to get to country and request this status. you can't get refugee status remotely.
Trump was talking about forced migration. There's no reason anyone else needs to support that.
Legal restrictions could be reduced if there are any counties willing to take refugees.
he wasn't talking about forced migration. he was talking about giving people housing/etc in other countries while gaza been rebuild, and later if they want they can come back.
at no point he was saying that gazans will be rounded up and moved out.
the way that conversation is going now is (and i am not trump fan):
- everybody: gaza is destroyed and nobody can live there. conditions are inhumane
- trump: lets allow to people move out to different countries, provide them with housing/jobs/etc while gaza is rebuild
- israel: we will help to people who want to leave - to leave
- everybody: this is literal genocide and ethnic cleansing. gazans should stay in gaza
I don't know any details about what the Trump administration proposed. Is there more to it than a few tweets?
A US administration that was serious about this would propose a deal to take some refugees from Gaza as a sign of good will. Something like "we will take 25% if other countries agree to take 75%." To say that other countries should take all the refugees, when they've shown no interest in it, is deeply cynical. So I didn't bother to look further.
Of course we'd never see that from the Trump administration. Unfortunately the Biden administration wasn't imaginative enough to suggest such a thing.