Unesco is one of those United Nations agencies that most people feel pretty comfortable with.
The group’s designated World Heritage Sites form a growing global roster of iconic natural, cultural, and historic locations ranging from the Grand Canyon and Independence Hall in the US to places ranging from the city centre of Rome or Florence to India’s Taj Mahal and the Acropolis in Athens, Greece.
Unesco has equally designated unique foods as part of the world’s intangible cultural heritage; Ukrainian Borsht soup, the delicious French Baguette, and Korean Kimchi. All good.
Nonetheless the United States has long had a tumultuous relationship with Unesco (United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization). The bone of political contention centres on what’s seen as inherent anti-Israel bias in the Paris-based organisation. That’s why even the Obama administration withheld American funding in 2011 when the group extended membership to Palestine. Donald Trump formally withdrew from Unesco in 2017.
At that time, Nikki Haley, who was the American UN ambassador, lauded Unesco’s purpose but charged the organisation’s “extreme politicisation has become a chronic embarrassment”.
America is now back among Unesco’s 193 member states; thanks to a curious initiative by the Biden administration to “counter China’s influence” in the consultative body. By the way, the US owes considerable contributions in arrears, back dues if you will, amounting to $619 million (22 billion baht)!
The US State Department “welcomed the way in which Unesco had addressed in recent years emerging challenges, modernized its management, and reduced political tensions.”
Unesco Director-General Audrey Azoulay told member states, “It’s a great day for Unesco and for multilateralism. Building upon the momentum achieved in recent years, our organisation is once again moving towards universalism with this return of the United States.”
Following a two-day special session held at the body’s Paris headquarters, Unesco’s members overwhelmingly voted to readmit the US; but 10 countries voted against Washington, among them Belarus, China, Indonesia, Iran, North Korea, Nicaragua, Palestine, Russia, and Syria.
The US is assessed to pay 22% of Unesco’s annual operating budget of $534 million dollars; that’s an approximately $150 million annual contribution, also counting towards budget arrears. The United States remains Unesco’s largest financial contributor, yet f ollowing Washington’s withdrawal under Mr Trump, China became the biggest donor state.
The United States previously pulled out of Unesco in 1984 during the Reagan administration because it viewed the agency as mismanaged, corrupt, and used to advance Soviet interests. The US rejoined in 2003.
Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield stated, “If we are not engaged in international institutions, we leave a void, and we lose an opportunity to advance American values and interests on the global stage. Wherever and whenever new rules are being debated, Americans need to be at the table.”
France’s left-leaning Le Monde newspaper opines that the Unesco deal opens the “return of American financial resources”. This editorial adds that the breakthrough will enable Washington to “settle a debt of $600 million and is bound to revitalise the institution.” It’s noted that Frenchwoman Audrey Azoulay heads Unesco “with an uncontested mastery”.
Clearly this is a done deal and Antony Blinken’s State Department is celebrating. But what about some measures and metrics to test whether the American investment in a renewed Unesco is worth our millions?
First, form a bipartisan Congressional Committee to oversee Unesco to make certain they are keeping to their promise of transparency and reform. Demand accountability.
Second, begin serious renegotiation of Washington’s onerous 22% financial assessment. These numbers are based on outdated contribution assessments which don’t take into account the economic rise of many of the G-20 countries, especially China.
Third, given that China has become Unesco’s largest donor, thus holding widening political clout, let’s also reduce Beijing’s annual contributions so we don’t fall victim to the “He who pays the piper syndrome” but rather equably spread the financial responsibility.
Fourth, let’s carefully assess and monitor what we actually gain from Unesco and how it helps or hinders America’s global soft power agenda.
Designating noted World Heritage sites and unique cuisines are laudable, but does this cost $543 million annually? Admittedly Unesco notably works with girls education projects in developing countries. And I’m particularly happy they’re coordinating the reconstruction of Iraq’s historic city of Mosul, which was under barbaric ISIL control for three years.
One rationalisation Biden administration used for rejoining Unesco is countering China’s growing influence and diplomatic footprint in the UN. Fair point. But let’s see if our wider investment is really warranted or wasted.
‘‘ Clearly this is a done deal and Antony Blinken’s State Department is celebrating.
John J Metzler is a United Nations correspondent covering diplomatic and defence issues.
