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

Four more years is four too many

Americans thought they would do better with a convicted felon, womanizer, racist, and flim-flam man.…

18 hours ago

Beyond ceasefire, what can really happen?

Israelis need to elect a government committed to democracy in order to get to the…

3 days ago

Come for lunch, stay for the talk!

I'll be speaking at Georgetown 12 noon-2 pm on my latest book: Strengthening International Regimes:…

5 days ago

An opportunity that may be missed

All have an interest in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, in stabilizing Syria, and…

5 days ago

Democracy doesn’t favor a serious peace

Can fragmented Israeli democracy, American pro-Israel diplomats, and a Saudi autocrat combine to produce a…

6 days ago

Things in the Balkans can get worse

Biden is pushing "strategic dialogues" with both Belgrade and Pristina. That's not the worst idea…

7 days ago