America lost the right to vote at a UN agency last week. So what, you say? So plenty, our diplomats answer.
Two years ago America stopped financing the UN Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Why? Because it’s the law: The George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations signed acts that ban American funding for any international organization that admits “Palestine” as member. So when a majority of UNESCO members voted in 2011 to do just that (despite knowing full well they’d risk the loss of US funds), the Obama administration could no longer pay dues to the Paris-based organization.
And at UNESCO, there’s no representation without taxation. Once a country fails to pay dues for two years (we’re $250 million in arrears), it can no longer vote.
And so, US laws clashed with the rules of an international organization. Quick: Guess who’s side our diplomats take? All too predictably, America’s UN ambassador, Samantha Power, tweeted the answer last week: “Losing the US vote in @UNESCO diminishes our voice at the UN.” The horrors.
In a statement, Power added that while sharing the “concerns” that motivated Congress to cut UNESCO’s allowance, she believes that losing America’s voting rights diminishes our ability to influence things we care about. You know, like “the rights of women and girls, Internet governance, freedom of the press, and the recognition and protection of cultural heritage.”
What a crock. Forget Palestinian membership. We’re talking about one of the least useful UN-linked bodies: How many women, children or other living things can claim to be better off because of UNESCO?
President Ronald Reagan, for one, didn’t seem to think America’s ability to protect rights, freedoms or heritage was diminished in 1984, when — followed by a host of other countries — he withdrew from that Paris bureaucracy, citing system-wide corruption and constant anti-American voting patterns.
Nor did women or the press do much better around the world since 2003.
That’s when America rejoined UNESCO once the Paris bureaucracy (supposedly) stopped voting against American interests. (It never ended the constant bashing of Israel’s culture, science or education.)
To be fair, Washington did score a minor success since resuming full UNESCO membership: We managed, at least once, to save the group from itself. In 2009, most UNESCO members were set to “elect” a new director-general, Egypt’s then-cultural minister, Farouk Hosny. Except that Hosny had told Cairo’s parliament, “I’d burn Israeli books myself if I found any in libraries in Egypt.”
Again: An organization charged with preserving the world’s cultural heritage (including literature, presumably) was about to elect as its leader a would-be book burner — and no one was raising an eyebrow.
Hosny’s candidacy was eventually nixed by Jewish groups, a few newspapers and US legislators who vowed to block funding. Surprise: Turns out that with a mere threat, we can nudge some UN mischief-makers.
Now Hosny’s replacement, UNESCO’s current chief, Irina Bokova of Bulgaria, laments the loss of US funds, which until two years ago financed 22 percent of her organization’s $643 million annual budget. That’s quite a haircut.
UNers charged with defending world science certainly can do the math: Paying UNESCO’s bills will hardly break America’s bank (our budgetary constraints aside). On the other hand, without US funding, UNESCO may suffocate. So why are our diplomats going to bat for UNESCO? They fear that by next spring — when Mideast peace talks collapse after the nine-month period Secretary of State John Kerry allocated to them — the Palestinian Authority will flood other UN bodies with requests for membership.
And once “Palestine” becomes a member, we’d need to defund some useful agencies, like the UN’s nuclear watchdog — or even the UN itself. So Power & Co. are pleading with Congress to waive the law, so they can keep funding UNESCO — and presumably, later, those other UN bodies.
Here’s a better idea: Why not make an example of UNESCO instead?
If Congress hangs tough, the Paris bureaucrats will soon learn that no international organization can suffer the loss of US financing for too long. Nor can they claim universal legitimacy if the world’s top power isn’t their member.
As Reagan showed, America’s toughest detractors soften when we play hardball. Obama-ites have yet to heed than lesson.