They’ll miss it once it’s gone

Tim Wirth argues that UNESCO admission of Palestine as a member will initiate a cascade of U.S. withdrawals from UN specialized agencies, damaging important American interests.  This is because current law prohibits the U.S. from providing financial contributions to any UN entity that admits Palestine as a member.

John Bolton says

UNESCO has made its decision: It prefers Palestinian membership to American participation. Now let the rest of the U.N. specialized agencies make their choice.

This is game of chicken, played between the U.S. Congress, which is not interested in changing the law, and foreign governments, most of which have so far seen support for Palestine’s membership in international organizations as a cheap way of supporting the Palestinians and expressing dissatisfaction with the Israeli government’s negotiating stance.

Despite its good works, few care much about UNESCO, which the U.S. stayed out of for years without much harm done.  As Wirth notes, the more important UN agencies for American interests are the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Health Organization, the International Telecommunications Union and the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Each will make its own decision based on the procedures outlined in its charter.

Some argue that failure to pay dues does not automatically lead to withdrawal from membership, and the U.S. could continue in arrears for at least several years, and possibly more, without legal consequences.  That may be so, but American influence would certainly decline, as would the capabilities of organizations that really do perform functions–like inspection of nuclear programs–that serve U.S. interests.

We are watching a diplomatic game of chicken, which like most diplomatic games occurs in slow motion.  If Palestine’s supporters blink first, their cause suffers a setback, but not really a very serious one.  More than 100 countries have already recognized Palestine.  Membership in international organizations won’t add much.  The international system would then remain what it is:  an imperfect but useful multilateral instrument through which Washington has often been successful in pursuing its interests.

But if they don’t and the U.S. cuts off funding, we could be witnessing the end of the post-World War II international system, one that depends on the United Nations and its specialized agencies to carry a lot of water for Washington.  Bolton and company don’t see it that way–they see it as a hindrance to American power and would rather get rid of it altogether.  But they’ll miss it once it’s gone.

Daniel Serwer

Share
Published by
Daniel Serwer

Recent Posts

Three elections, one profound choice

In Serbia, Israel, and the US, corrupt ethnonationalist incumbents are trying to stem a tide…

12 hours ago

Ukraine: the frontline and the future

This promises to be a great event!

1 week ago

Dialogue should not be about the Association

The EU should not insist on the ASM but work on other matters until Serbia…

1 week ago

Two awful messes make an awful world

Putin has good reason to be happy with his "нелега́л" agent in the White House.

1 week ago

Albanian anti-government protests: student revolt and political crisis

For a country seeking European Union membership, this is an important test of democratic resilience…

1 week ago

It’s not just the verdict that is unjust

This is one more lesson in why you shouldn't be too friendly to Washington and…

1 month ago