Tweet
UNESCO Headquarters in Paris - just prior to opening in 1958 (Photo: United Nations Photos, flickr)
This was an historic day at the United Nations. The United Nations Educational Scientific Cultural Organization, one of the most important bodies on the planet, voted to give the Palestinian State full membership in the body. BBC:
This is the first UN agency the Palestinians have sought to join since submitting their bid for recognition to the Security Council in September.
The UN Security Council will vote next month on whether to grant the Palestinians full UN membership.
Widespread applause greeted the result of Monday’s vote in the chamber – of 173 countries taking part, 107 were in favour, 14 voted against and 52 abstained.
The New York Times:
The step will cost the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization one-quarter of its yearly budget — the 22 percent contributed by the United States (about $70 million) plus another 3 percent contributed by Israel. Unless that shortfall is made up by other nations, Unesco will have to begin closing offices and laying off staff.
Cheers filled the hall at Unesco’s headquarters here after the vote, with one delegate shouting “Long live Palestine!” in French. The Palestinian foreign minister, Riad al-Malki, praised the organization, saying that “this vote will help erase a tiny part of the injustice done to the Palestinian people” and will help protect world heritage sites in Israeli-occupied territory.
In a long speech that was met with applause, Mr. Malki said that “this membership will be the best step toward peace and stability,” insisting that the Palestinian request for membership in Unesco was “linked in no way to our request to join the United Nations.”
The Obama administration, which values its membership in Unesco, tried unsuccessfully to keep the vote from taking place, while Irina Bokova, the American-supported director-general of the organization, traveled to Washington to meet with congressional leaders and ask them to alter the law.
Legislation dating from 1990 and 1994 mandates a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts the Palestinians as a full member. State Department lawyers judged that there was no leeway in the legislation, and no possibility of a waiver, so the United States contribution for 2011 and future years will not be paid.
Addressing Unesco’s general conference after the vote, the American ambassador to the organization, David T. Killion, said that the United States “remains deeply committed to Unesco,” which he called a “vital organization.” But he repeatedly called the vote on Monday “premature” and said the United States would seek other means to support the agency, though he did not offer specifics.
Victoria Nuland, a spokeswoman for the State Department, said an expected November payment of $60 million to the agency would not be made.
Ms. Nuland, is married to Robert Kagan, one of the original creators of the notorious Project for the New American Century, perhaps the most instrumental organization behind the lies that got us into Iraq, and cost the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the list of nations who voted for Palestinian acceptance is the roster of Western Hemisphere nations:
Against: Canada, Panama, The United States.
Abstained: Bahamas, Barbados, Colombia, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago.
Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Guyana.
For: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Equador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Sant Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela.
This was a very bad day for the United States. When the Israeli Ambassador to the UN predictably voted “No,” the audience actually erupted in openly derisive laughter. When the voting was over and the Palestinians became members, the audience erupted in cheers:
Also of note in the vote is that every nation in the region voted for Palestinian UNESCO membership. Working outward from Palestine’s shrinking territories, where even today, the Israelis are making further threats against the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian people:
Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrein, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iran, Libya, Tunisia, Turkey, Greece, Malta, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to name the most important.
The closest nations to abstain were Macedonia and Italy.
The closest nation to vote against membership, other than Israel, was the Czech Republic.
Update: Monday afternoon, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland confronted about aspects of the UNESCO vote and the administration’s reaction to it, by the AP’s Matt Lee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEGuvuSe0q4&feature=youtu.be
58 Comments
Well, then we’ll just take our ball and go on home. Doesn’t the pettiness kinda make you proud to be a ‘Murikan?
Another example of why we must vote Dem to save us from the scary Repubs LOL.
I’m having trouble finding the “Legislation dating from 1990 and 1994 mandates a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts the Palestinians as a full member.”
Can anyone suggest a good source?
What do you mean Obama plans to quit UNESCO?
UNESCO hates us for our freedom.
Again, I’m shamed of my government and the Vichycrats.
The USA is required to quit any UN agency that recognizes Palestinian statehood. Although the operative laws were passed in the early 1990s (the US has quit UNESCO before), his administration’s spokespeople have been very clear that they will not seek an exemption from the law, wither by executive authority, or by going to Congress.
As more UN orgs recognize Palestine, the USA will be required by law to drop out of those agencies too.
Don’t ya just adore AIPAC’s sway over our Congress critters and Executive branch, ironymeter…?
And people were pissed at me for not standing up and singing “Proud to be an American” between quarters at a football game. Yee-haw.
The UN would be better off if we do not participate in UNESCO, … or the UN in general.
At the end of the day it’s about right versus wrong. If I was the UN I would say keep the money, and we will do without it.
Canada is under full neo-con control, so no surprises there.
As for Mexico, color me surprised as they are also under neo-con/neo-liberal policy control. Maybe their ambassador made a mistake. He/she will pay he price for it.
Many thanks for keeping the updates coming, much appreciated.
Oh, the headline made it sound like it was Obama’s choice – that’s what confused me.
Isn’t it his choice? Can’t he override the US law with executive authority?
I would love it if they shut down the entire NYC UN operations, and have the Geneva branch take over all the UN operations…! ;-)
My thoughts about UNESCO involve world historic sites. Are we going to throw those over too?
It may be getting more complicated rapidly. I’m glad I called this vote “historic” above, because it is. There’s a good article that came up this afternoon at Politico by Jonathan Allen. Here’s some of the most interesting stuff:
Enjoy this while you can, Canadian Conservatives. Next election, the NDP kicks your asses to the curb.
Speaking of Canada, I hope to write a diary here on the new information on BC farmed salmon contaminating the wild runs, when I find the time.
Regarding the upcoming possible demise of the Conservatives, it is beginning to look like you may be right.
Time to send a note to my Congressman.
Thanks, ET. I’m so glad.
Sent the note.
What did it say?
Great read ET, thanks and rcc’d.
The US disconnects from the planet, shames itself, and alienates the world, continually, it would seem.
LeSigh. Others will step in, for sure . . . bless them.
Should cities remove “Occupy” protestors from public places?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/10/question-of-the-day-467.html
(obviously not a scientific poll, but the comments are interesting)
Occupy Canada Protests Have Backing Of Plurality, But Most Doubt It Will Do Any Good: Poll
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/27/occupy-canada-poll-conservatives-agree-corporations-too-much-power_n_1035277.html
(this is scientific)
The Occupy Vancouver protesters are on solid ground
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/the-occupy-vancouver-protesters-are-on-solid-ground/article2215309/comments/
(wealth inequality growing in Canada)
And a good read, What the Heckfi is Occupy about?
http://amymacpherson.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/the-occupy-movement-a-detailed-explanation/
Thanks ET. I enjoyed that video :)
Does anyone know the name of the legislation that declares that if Israel a acquires nukes outside of the IEAE we have to stop funding them?
Juan Cole has just put up an interesting analysis of the costs to the US of its reactions to this UNESCO vote. Carrying water for Israel has been costly to the US and will continue to be down this path of isolation we have taken.
UNESCO Palestine Vote Isolates US Further
http://www.juancole.com/2011/11/unesco-palestine-vote-isolates-us-further.html
I recall reading somewhere that the US was not a member UNESCO for a couple of decades during the 80s aqnd 90s, and only rejoined during the Bush II administration. It appeared to be able to get along without us then, and probably will continue to do so in the future.
Thanks Ed for covering this story.
MJ Rosenberg just published this further inside look at US-Israeli relations and its ramifications:
UNESCO Fiasco: Dancing to Netanyahu’s Tune
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/unesco-funding_b_1068544.html
How is this Obama’s fault? You act like he’s the President of the most influential nation on earth… like he has the power to influence the State Department… as though he was the commander in chief of the largest military in history… as though he could direct foreign policy with any personal input.
You expect a lot from a puppet.
Caribbean countries have been warned against voting in favor of Palestine statehood by the US- will lose funding- ironically enough, for anti-drug efforts if they do. Thus absent or abstaining.
I should have noted that 3 Caribbean countries did vote in favor. I guess they are willing to take the chance on losing funding. Will be interesting to see how that turns out.
Costs to the U.S.? Seems to me it’s going to save us $60MM just this month.
Sure, if he doesn’t mind being impeached.
Public Law 101-246 (1990) states that “[n]o funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.”
Public Law 103-236 Title IV (1994) prohibits “voluntary or assessed contribution to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-funding-line-unesco-mulls-membership-palestine
Yeah, executive authority is a very weighty matter (if you’re not doing the MOTU’s bidding; otherwise, it’s standard operating procedure).
Are you implying that not participating in conventions and agreements under the auspices of UNESCO is not costly in one way or another?
Please DO TELL how Obama is so way way way majorly incredibly outstandingly and clearly DIFFERENT from a scary scary scary booga booga booga TeaGOPer politician???
Anyone? Anything?
No? Yeah: didn’t think so.
Change I can believe in…. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! ptoui!
Nice catch on Nuland/Kagan marriage. I did not know that.
democracynow had a good segment on this morning.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/1/us_pulls_all_funding_for_unesco
Long grilling of Nuland by AP reporter featured. Much fun.
Oh sure, I’ll bet he quakes in fear of impeachment every time he murders twenty or thirty people in his quest to side-step the Constitution through extra-judicial assassination.
That, and by continuing in GW’s footsteps by violating the War Powers Act. Wait, don’t go, there’s more…
For those concerned about U.S. pulling out of IAEA, I’d think that is one of the better aspects from O’s POV. USG hates IAEA bc it always sez Iran has no nuke program. U.S. pulling out of IAEA would relieve it of one more impediment to attacking Iran.
“State Department lawyers judged that there was no leeway in the legislation, and no possibility of a waiver…”
So, some laws are more equal, too.
My parents used to tell me that the purpose of the UN was a place for nations to talk, not decide stuff. When the talking stops is when the war begins (first thing a country does is pull their ambassadors).
Australia also voted Against
and as I said yesterday, this is a Limbaugh wet dream
Great point, I was thinking the same thing. This is about the law and not his decisions.
I should have concluded that this fits with the US’s desire to go to war with whomever whenever they want.
The U.S. is getting smaller and smaller. Must be the prevalence of enlarged amygdalas.
Ed, it seems to me that since the Executive is delegated to conduct foreign policy for the US, that a congressional action cannot override an executive action in this context. I hope that this point will get some analysis in the near future. On the other hand, it is possible giving the upcoming election that Obama might not wish to start a fight over what Israel wants.
Exactly, the law is something to respect if you have an interest in obeying it, if not, well, Fuck IT!, “I’m the President, if I do it, it’s legal,” or “We’re the US, if we do it, who’s gonna stop us? HAHAHAH”
So actually it’s about his decisions to do nothing. There are so many examples to choose from too! “Vote for me! I can’t/won’t do Jack Shit for you!”
What an election slogan.
Oh yes, thanks for the laugh. Good one.
Ahem. Don’t forget the U.K. ruled half the globe from a small island.
Thanks for the update on this, Edward Teller. Good summary of the situation.
If you look at the whole World the U.S.A is the 1% so this is in line with why the U.N. hardly ever is on our side. (our being the 1% side).
gee, that’s real far-sighted of you — and that lack of foresight and inability to see the Big Picture is a distinguishing characteristic of reactionary right-wingers (I’d say “republicans,” but I no longer believe in their “two-party” fairy tale) — just sayin’ . . .
you apparently can’t see the long-run cost to the U.S. of being so pathetically out of step with the rest of the world, not only in terms of specific dollar amounts, but also in terms of international good will and cooperation and the benefits they can bring to our own quality of life.
Gee, Obombem’s newfound respect for the law is most impressive.
Does this mean he’ll now rescind his Idi Amin-like executive power of extrajudicial execution?
The pig uses “the law” as an excuse when it suits him.
Otherwise, the fake “constitutional scholar” seems mysteriously and abysmally ignorant of the law — or deliberately and willfully ignores it — you decide (I’d say it’s the latter — or he’s just a huge liar and woefully unqualified for “public service” — either way, he should have been impeached a long time ago).
Since he gave himself the power to assassinate anyone he wants on his say-so, doesn’t it seem fair to think he could also issue an executive order waiving the “laws” you cite? Only if he *wanted* to — which his boss Netanyahu won’t allow.
Agreed. It’s seems pointless to keep the UN in the states at this point.
“Caribbean countries have been warned against voting in favor of Palestine statehood by the US- will lose funding- ironically enough, [for anti-drug efforts] if they do”
Isn’t that like shooting yourself in the foot??
“The Obama administration, which values its membership in Unesco, tried unsuccessfully to keep the vote from taking place . . .”
What’s that about spreading freedom and democracy?
Thank you texan99.
It’s interesting to note that Congress had a Dem majority in 1990 and 1994. In 1990 they had the Senate, too, I believe.
If we’re going to project into the future, the savings are a minimum of $80MM a year. The costs of our withdrawing are a lot harder for me to quantify, or even identify. We withdrew from UNESCO for many years between Reagan and Bush II. Does anyone here know what that “cost” us?
Gee, BHO should have used those same State Dept lawyers who justified the Libya invasion as being outside the War Powers Act, or the ones who said that the hit on Al-Awlaki was okay, if he really wanted to get a waiver.
The Palestine Liberation Organization is not the same entity as the “Palestinian Authority.” Last I heard, the portion of Palestine known as Gaza is being run by Hamas, which ain’t part of the PLO. So, BHO, you could scratch off the 1990 law, if you wanted to.
I think there are a whole lot of UN member countries that would say that the “Palestinian Authority” does indeed have “the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.” So, the 1994 law should not prevent the US from paying the UNESCO assessments.
Note that my interpretations are NOT related to some sort of “waiver.” They are straightforward, direct interpretations of the two public laws as quoted by Texan99.
That’s if you were really interested in paying the UNESCO assessments and staying in the organization. And you don’t even have to be creative to do that.