US to pull out of UNESCO amid Palestinian tensions
PARIS (AP) — The United States is pulling out of UNESCO because of what Washington sees as its anti-Israel bias and a need for "fundamental reform" of the U.N. cultural agency.
While the Trump administration had been preparing for a likely withdrawal for months, the announcement by the State Department on Thursday rocked UNESCO's Paris headquarters, where a heated election to choose a new director is under way.
The outgoing UNESCO chief expressed her "profound regret" at the decision and tried to defend the reputation of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, best known for its World Heritage program to protect cultural sites and traditions.
The U.S. stopped funding UNESCO after it voted to include Palestine as a member in 2011, but the State Department has maintained a UNESCO office and sought to weigh on policy behind the scenes. The U.S. now owes about $550 million in back payments.
In a statement, the State Department said the decision will take effect Dec. 31, 2018, and that the U.S. will seek a "permanent observer" status instead. It cited U.S. belief in "the need for fundamental reform in the organization."
Several diplomats who were to have been posted to the mission this summer were told that their positions were on hold and advised to seek other jobs. In addition, the Trump administration's proposed budget for the next fiscal year contains no provision for the possibility that UNESCO funding restrictions might be lifted.
The lack of staffing and funding plans for UNESCO by the U.S. have been accompanied by repeated denunciations of UNESCO by senior U.S. officials, including U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.
U.S. officials said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made the decision and that it was not discussed with other countries but was the result of an internal U.S. government deliberation.
The officials, who were not authorized to be publicly named discussing the issue, said the U.S. is notably angry over UNESCO resolutions denying Jewish connections to holy sites and references to Israel as an occupying power.
Many saw the 2011 UNESCO vote to include Palestine as evidence of long-running, ingrained anti-Israel bias within the United Nations, where Israel and its allies are far outnumbered by Arab countries and their supporters.
UNESCO's outgoing director-general, Irina Bokova of Bulgaria, called the U.S. departure a loss for "the United Nations family" and for multilateralism. She said the U.S. and UNESCO matter to each other more than ever now to better fight "the rise of violent extremism and terrorism."
She defended UNESCO's reputation, noting its efforts to support Holocaust education and train teachers to fight anti-Semitism — and that that the Statue of Liberty is among the many World Heritage sites protected by the U.N. agency. UNESCO also works to improve education for girls in poor countries and in scientific fields and to defend media freedom, among other activities.
Other UNESCO members did not immediately comment on the U.S. departure.
It's not the first time the U.S. pulled out of UNESCO: Washington did the same thing in the 1980s because it viewed the agency as mismanaged, corrupt and used to advance Soviet interests. The U.S. rejoined in 2003.
Tags
Who is online
69 visitors
They can take that money from the other projects the US has footed the bill for as a member of the UN.
And those would be?
You can figure it out probably.
Oh! I have.....but I'm not the one that make the assertion.....either put up or shut up!
Then why ask.
I'm not?! I'm sorry for a moment there I thought this was a discussion board! Sorry but your not exempt from making a baseless accusation and not be called out to back it up! Like someone said you're entitled to your own opinion NOT your own facts
The US stopped funding the UNESCO in 2011.
The USA should apply the 550 million dollars it has withheld to needed infrastructure improvements in the USA, and tell the UN to go to Hell (which is where it belongs).
Screw the UN. Let it sue for the money.
My sentiments exactly.
The only war between Canada and the USA was in 1812, and Canada won - lit fire to your White House (as admitted by the tour guide when I was on a tour of the White House). However, these days, Canada would have to be defended by the USA if were attaced by any other country except maybe Liechtenstein or Monaco.
Not to mention the land that the UN Headquarters is located.
At least SOME of the ones fighting the USA during that war were Canadians:
(emphasis added by me)
Maybe so, but the Arabs rule the buildings on it, so for sure they're not going to fly any airplanes into it.
Car bombs on the other hand....
On the other hand, did you ever watch the movie "The Mouse That Roared"?
what good did it do US citizens when we were in it?
How does everyone feel about UNRWA, a UN body that is separate from the regular UN Refugee-helping organization by funding only one specific set of refugees - the Palestinians, not just the original refugees like the regular UN organization which only funds 1st generation refugees, but all descendants no matter what the generation and will continue to do so ad infinitum. How do you feel about burning up your tax dollars with THAT piece of UN garbage?
OMG AJP, that isn't what I meant.
It was a suggestion. As the name implies liberals do their own thing. I thought you could bring the topic up there about why your articles are getting so little attention on the front page, not that liberals should stay in a group. No one wants a front page that is an echo chamber.
the Statue of Liberty is among the many World Heritage sites protected by the U.N. agency.
I hadn't realized that the Statue of Liberty was under threat of attack...
One question though-- who, exactly, is the U.N. protecting the Statue from...?
(And I can't help but wonder-- is the U.N. also actively protecting The Washington Monument from attack? How about the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials?)
" Obviously, being infected with HIV is no small thing as a cure is yet to be found. Still, it is certainly better to have the more prevalent HIV 1 strain as detection and treatment occurs much faster. "
So HIV 1 which is more common in the US of A is a world wide PANDEMIC, while HIV 1 Which is in Africa is not,, so why the LIES and who is spreading them?? is it the UN??
See the CDC and what IT does!
Second HIV 1 is meant to be HIV 2