UNESCO in the Spotlight: Science and Communications

UNESCO defines a budget covering two years of operation. The budget in the above graph are in millions of US dollars. The budget defined in the 30th General Conference (2000-2001) was $544 million. The following budgets showed increases until the 36th General Conference (2012-2013) which reached $653 million. Following the most recent reforms, the budget for 2014-2015 is $465 million. In addition to the regular budget financed by assessed contributions, UNESCO also receives voluntary contributions for additional programs and activities.

The international professional staff is composed of persons in the following career steps:

• Junior professionals (grade P-1/P-2) 

The principal goal of employees at these levels is to demonstrate your expertise by participating in the execution of programs and projects, moving in the course of your apprenticeship to higher levels of responsibility. 

• Middle-ranking professionals (grade P-3/P-4) 

Staff at these levels serve as a project leaders in charge of small teams; They launch and develop particular facets of the UNESCO program and gain further professional experience. 

• Management professionals (grade P-5 and D) 

Responsibilities as head of a section, director of a division or director of a UNESCO field office will include direct participation in the preparation and execution of the Organization’s strategy. At this level, staff members will manage budgets and assume leadership roles. 

As the graph shows, the numbers of junior and middle-ranking professionals have increased since 2000, while the numbers of management professionals have decreased.

Click here for the original source of these data. 

Countries that have recognized the State of Palestine.Source: Night w

The United States policy is that a two state solution is needed to resolve the long standing dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. According to Wikipedia, "of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 132 (68.4%) have recognized the State of Palestine as of April 2013.  On 29 November 2012, the General Assembly granted Palestine non-member observer state status in United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19." UNESCO granted membership to Palestine in 2011.

U.S. law requires that the government withhold funding from any United Nations agency that accepts Palestine as a member state. Apparently, two decades ago when the legislation was passed and signed into law, it was felt that recognition of Palestine by UN agencies would militate against the successful negotiation of an agreement between Israel and Palestine settling their disputed border and the management of their territories.

The Need for the Legislation to Be Revised

The legislation is badly worded. The operative portion reads:

"The United States shall not make any voluntary or assessed contribution - (1) 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, or (2) to the United Nations, if the United Nations grants full membership as a state in the United Nations to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, during any period in which such membership is effective."

It is not clear what constitutes "an affiliated organization of the United Nations". It seems likely that the term would include the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the other International Financial Institutions, the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and many other organizations. Nor is it clear what states fail to have "the internationally recognized attributes of statehood". Do Somalia and Syrian Arab Republic meet that definition in spite of their failed governments? Does Palestine not meet that definition in spite of the fact that most of the world's nations have recognized it as a state?

Given this lack of clarity in the provision, it might be that the U.S. Government would have to withhold funding from the World Bank (which includes both Somalia and the Syrian Arab Republic as member states) and other agencies critical to our nation/s interests.

The provision also has no sunset clause so no matter how conditions change in the future it will continue in force until there is an act of Congress to change or repeal it.

There is a simple solution to the revision of the legislation. Amend it to give authority to the President to waive the provision if he finds it to be in the nation's interest to do so. The Congress will of course continue to define the contributions to UN agencies through appropriations legislation and can withhold funding from any international agency that it chooses.

Restore Funding to UNESCO

Last week the administration requested funding for UNESCO in its FY2014 State and Foreign Operations budget proposal:

The Administration seeks Congressional support for legislation that would provide authority to waive legislative restrictions that, if triggered, would prohibit paying U.S. contributions to United Nations specialized agencies that grant the Palestinians the same standing as member states or full membership as a state. Should the Congress pass this waiver legislation, the FY 2014 funding specifically requested for UNESCO would cover the FY 2014 UNESCO assessment and the FY 2013 and FY 2014 Contingent Requirements funding would cover arrears which accrued in FY 2012 and FY 2013. 

 The administration is no doubt referring to UNESCO's programs in education, science, culture and communications. UNESCO has been notably supportive of U.S. policy objectives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan implementing programs supported by voluntary contributions.

Perhaps more important is the fact that there is a huge network of people and organizations worldwide that affiliate themselves with UNESCO's objective of building the defenses of peace in the minds of men. Those networks include national commissions for UNESCO, people and organizations supporting World Heritage sites, educators implementing Education for All, scientists involved in UNESCO's network of biosphere reserves, those involved in UNESCO's regional tsunami warning systems, scientists involved in UNESCO's many water centers and programs, and many others. It is important that the United States continue to show its support for UNESCO's mission so that these people will retain their respect for the United States.

Last year the Obama administration requested the waiver authority and it has also requested the appropriation of funds for UNESCO.

The authorization legislation defines policy -- what the program is to do. It is the province of:

• The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and
• The House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Here are a couple of articles relating to the last post:

1. "Leading Senator Calls for Change in Self-Defeating US Policy on UNESCO", UN Dispatch, February 8, 2013
2. "Obama’s budget’s surprise: Restore UNESCO funding!" The Washington Post, 02/16/2012

Recall that the executive branch makes a budget request, but it is the Congress that actually appropriates funds. The House of Representatives has a major role, and the Obama administration may face an uphill battle getting funding for UNESCO. Last year it also requested funding for UNESCO, and it was not appropriated.

In terms of foreign policy, I agree with Senator Leahy that U.S. funding for UNESCO enables it to do more to achieve our objectives than would an alternative use of the funds. I don't think that restoration of funding to UNESCO would significantly damage our relations with Israel, and it might help a little with opinion about the USA in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

In terms of domestic policy, the lobby that pushed through the 1990 legislation still exists and will probably oppose any change in that legislation.

I just received an email with the following:



Mr. LEAHY.  Mr. President, there was a lot of attention recently on the French military’s operation to repel Islamic extremists and Tuareg nationalist rebels who had terrorized the local population of northern Mali, including in the ancient city of Timbuktu.  That operation was widely welcomed by local Malian citizens and the international community.  Many of the rebels are believed to be hiding out among the local population until the French soldiers leave, so whether they are ultimately vanquished remains to be seen.  It will depend in large measure on the longer term capability of a multinational force of African troops supported by the United States and others.

Besides terrorizing, torturing, mutilating, and slaughtering innocent people, the rebels destroyed ancient tombs, shrines, and manuscripts dating to a period many centuries ago when Timbuktu was a crossroads for commerce and a center of intellectual pursuits in northern Africa.  I mention this not only to inform those who may be unaware of Mali’s ongoing cultural importance, but also to call attention to the fact that Irina Bokova, director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, commonly known as UNESCO, has already pledged to reconstruct the damaged mausoleums.  As she was quoted in The New York Times on February 4, 2013, “This is the record of the golden ages of the Malian empire.  If you let this disappear, it would be a crime against humanity.”

There are also little known heroes in this otherwise humanitarian and cultural disaster.  Malian residents, particularly Ali Iman Ben Essayouti, who knew the importance of priceless manuscripts preserved in a library funded by international donors including the Library of Congress and Department of State, managed to carefully move some of them to another location where the rebels did not find them.  As a result, although the rebels burned the library, only a small portion of the manuscripts were destroyed.

The other point of this is that, as many Senators are aware, the United States, once the largest contributor to UNESCO including under President George W. Bush, was forced to sever its support last year due to a 1990s law that prohibits U.S. funding to any United Nations-affiliated agency in which the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) obtains the same standing as a member state.  After UNESCO’s members voted, against the advice of Ms. Bokova, to grant the PLO that standing, the law was triggered and U.S. funding abruptly ended.

This is illogical and self-defeating.  First, although the PLO was a terrorist organization in the 1990s, it is no longer.  Second, by cutting off our contribution to UNESCO we not only empower its other members, including Russia, Iran, and Syria, we also make it impossible to assist the organization in the kind of cultural preservation activities it is now undertaking in Mali, which are clearly in the national interest of the United States.  There are many other examples, including World Heritage Sites like the Great Barrier Reef, which UNESCO designates and protects, today without the support of the United States.  And finally, if U.S. funding is not restored before the end of this fiscal year, we will lose our vote in the organization.  Ironically, despite PLO membership in UNESCO, Israel has paid its dues through 2014.  Presumably, Israeli officials recognize, as we should, that their interests are far better served by participating in a UN agency, not by watching from the sidelines.

Mr. President, regardless of what one may think about Palestinian President Abbas’ effort to obtain UN membership for the PLO, and I am among those who regard it as an unhelpful distraction, cutting off U.S. funding to UNESCO and thereby weakening our influence and empowering our adversaries makes no sense.  It is time we recognize that a law that might have seemed sensible to some people years ago has had unintended consequences that run directly counter to our interests, and should be amended or repealed.

The United States Government has withheld its funding from UNESCO since last year. It is now time to take action to encourage the government to fund UNESCO again. Write your Senator and Congressman. Sign this petition.

The Problem

Two parts of U.S. law are of specific concern (US Code - Title 22: Foreign Relations and Intercourse / 22 USC 287 - Sec. 287e. Authorization of appropriations; payment of expenses) :

• Pub. L. 101-246, title IV, Sec. 414, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 70: "(a) Prohibition. - No 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." (b) Transfer or Reprogramming. - Funds subject to the prohibition contained in subsection (a) which would be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof (but for that prohibition) are authorized to remain available until expended and may be reprogrammed or transferred to any other account of the Department of State or the Agency for International Development to carry out the general purposes for which such funds were authorized." 
• Pub. L. 103-236, title IV, Sec. 410, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 454: "The United States shall not make any voluntary or assessed contribution - "(1) 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, or "(2) to the United Nations, if the United Nations grants full membership as a state in the United Nations to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, during any period in which such membership is effective."

The General Conference of UNESCO last year admitted Palestine to membership. The United States Government immediately began to withhold payments of assessed and voluntary contributions to the Organization. UNESCO's rules state that the voting privileges of a member state will be revoked if it does not pay its assessed contributions for two years. The General Conference next year will approve the program and budget for UNESCO for the following two years and elect the Director General for the next four years.

The Remedy

The law should be revised to permit the President to waive these provisions if he decides it is in the interests of the United States to do so.

Why the Law Should Be Changed

There are a number of reasons that the law should be changed:

1. It no longer achieves its original purpose. These provisions were included in the Foreign Relations Authorizations to prevent Palestine from being admitted to membership in United Nations organizations. Last year, in full knowledge of the law, the UNESCO General Conference admitted Palestine. Last week, also in full knowledge of the law, the United Nations General Assembly recognized Palestine as a state by admitting is to Non-Member State Observer status. Palestine has announced that it will apply for membership in other UN organizations and experts predict that the applications will be approved.
2. The provisions as they stand are outdated. They became law in 1990 and 1994. At the time the Soviet Union had broken up, and the United States was exceptionally powerful in world affairs. The world has changed. Other countries and coalitions are more influential in United Nations venues. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two decades older and views about its possible solutions have changed. Most other nations have recognized Palestine as a state.
3. The effects of the provisions may become profoundly contrary to U.S. national interests. If for example the United States were forced to withhold funding from the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, or the World Health Organization by these provisions, especially at times of national security crisis, the national interest could suffer significant damage -- far more than would occur due to admission of Palestine as one of hundreds of members of such an organization.
4. The provisions are unclear as written. What is the difference in meaning between "the same standing as member states" and "full membership as a state". Does granting of Permanent Observer Status to a state trigger the provision? (Palestine was just granted Non-Member State Permanent Observer status to the United Nations. Indeed, Palestine has long been granted a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and is maintaining permanent offices at Headquarters.)
5. The interpretation of "the full attributes of statehood" is also subject to uncertainty. (Belarus was admitted to membership in UNESCO in 1954 although at that time it was a constituent republic of the USSR. The United States Government at the time is reported to have argued that if the constituent republics of the USSR were to be admitted as member states, then the states of the USA ought also to be admitted individually.) And perhaps most importantly
6. The provisions may take the decision on participation in an organization out of the hands of the U.S. government. Not only is it possible for a coalition of foreign nations to elect Palestine to membership in another UN organization, but it might be possible for a single state to make that case that a current member state of an international organization has characteristics that trigger the provisions.

The United States Government has withheld its funding from UNESCO since last year. It is now time to take action to encourage the government to fund UNESCO again. Write your Senator and Congressman. Sign this petition.

The Problem

Two parts of U.S. law are of specific concern (US Code - Title 22: Foreign Relations and Intercourse / 22 USC 287 - Sec. 287e. Authorization of appropriations; payment of expenses) :

• Pub. L. 101-246, title IV, Sec. 414, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 70: "(a) Prohibition. - No 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." (b) Transfer or Reprogramming. - Funds subject to the prohibition contained in subsection (a) which would be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof (but for that prohibition) are authorized to remain available until expended and may be reprogrammed or transferred to any other account of the Department of State or the Agency for International Development to carry out the general purposes for which such funds were authorized." 
• Pub. L. 103-236, title IV, Sec. 410, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 454: "The United States shall not make any voluntary or assessed contribution - "(1) 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, or "(2) to the United Nations, if the United Nations grants full membership as a state in the United Nations to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, during any period in which such membership is effective."

The General Conference of UNESCO last year admitted Palestine to membership. The United States Government immediately began to withhold payments of assessed and voluntary contributions to the Organization. UNESCO's rules state that the voting privileges of a member state will be revoked if it does not pay its assessed contributions for two years. The General Conference next year will approve the program and budget for UNESCO for the following two years and elect the Director General for the next four years.

The Remedy

The law should be revised to permit the President to waive these provisions if he decides it is in the interests of the United States to do so.

Why the Law Should Be Changed

There are a number of reasons that the law should be changed:

1. It no longer achieves its original purpose. These provisions were included in the Foreign Relations Authorizations to prevent Palestine from being admitted to membership in United Nations organizations. Last year, in full knowledge of the law, the UNESCO General Conference admitted Palestine. Palestine has announced that it will apply for membership in other UN organizations and experts predict that the applications will be approved.
2. The provisions as they stand are outdated. They became law in 1990 and 1994. At the time the Soviet Union had broken up, and the United States was exceptionally powerful in world affairs. The world has changed. Other countries and coalitions are more influential in United Nations venues. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two decades older and views about its possible solutions have changed.
3. The effects of the provisions may become profoundly contrary to U.S. national interests. If for example the United States were forced to withhold funding from the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, or the World Health Organization by these provisions, especially at times of national security crisis, the national interest could suffer significant damage -- far more than would occur due to admission of Palestine as one of hundreds of members of such an organization.
4. The provisions are unclear as written. What is the difference in meaning between "the same standing as member states" and "full membership as a state". Does granting of Permanent Observer Status to a state trigger the provision? (Palestine has applied for Permanent Observer status to the United Nations. Indeed, Palestine has been granted a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly and is maintaining permanent offices at Headquarters.)
5. The interpretation of "the full attributes of statehood" is also subject to uncertainty. (Belarus was admitted to membership in UNESCO in 1954 although at that time it was a constituent republic of the USSR. The United States Government at the time is reported to have argued that if the constituent republics of the USSR were to be admitted as member states, then the states of the USA ought also to be admitted individually.) And perhaps most importantly
6. The provisions may take the decision on participation in an organization out of the hands of the U.S. government. Not only is it possible for a coalition of foreign nations to elect Palestine to membership in another UN organization, but it might be possible for a single state to make that case that a current member state of an international organization has characteristics that trigger the provisions.

The General Conference of UNESCO last fall voted, over America's opposition, to admit Palestine to membership. In response, and in keeping with laws passed in the early 1990s, the United States is withholding its contributions to UNESCO. Since the U.S. assessed contribution corresponds to 22 percent of its regular budget, this is causing a crisis in the Organization.

Here is a comment on the case by the Turkish publication, Todays Zaman:

Just by looking at UNESCO’s identity motto one can observe that something about the latest US decision is not quite right. 

Here it is: “UNESCO contributes to the building of peace, the alleviation of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information.” And, one may add, it pursues these noble objectives across many underdeveloped countries all over the world. 

How is it possible then that the Obama administration has announced that it will stop payments towards such an institution? The US, also known as the land of possibilities, has knowingly decided to deny their support for an organization that courageously helps people in need all over the world. I don’t mean to be cacophonic, but this resolution implies, and that’s the worst part of it, the taking away of the possibility of a better life for people in need around the world. 

In other words, a lot of programs will be shut down.......... 

The controversy within the position adopted by the US seems to be merely of a legal nature. We know that the US has proved all along to be a loyal ally of Israel. We also know that in the ‘90s two congressional laws were created to expressly prohibit the funding of any UN organization that accepts the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as a full member. The purpose of the laws was to encourage negotiation between Israelis and the Palestinians to reach a just and broad peace. What we might not know is that the laws are reversible, and the US Congress could abolish these laws if it wants to. It could vote at any given time to invalidate them, as declared by the president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.

Read the entire article titled "Why US decision to deny support to UNESCO is extremely controversial"
by Eleonora Galasso.

In the UNESCO General Conference last year, Palestine was elected as a member state over the opposition of the United States. According to a provision of law a couple of decades old, the United States was then required to withhold its contributions to the Organization. Doing so has created a major problem for UNESCO in that the United States pays a portion of the UNESCO regular budget roughly proportional to the U.S. portion of the global GDP, in this case 22 percent. Funds began to be withheld with the final payment of dues for 2011, and are being withheld now.

The Obama administration plans to seek legislation to permit the President to waive the provision requiring withholding of those contributions. It is normal to allow the President to waive such provisions when it is appropriate to the foreign policy of the United States to do so. This is in keeping with the foreign policy responsibilities assigned to the president in the Constitution, and allows for more timely changes than would be possible through the Congressional process of revision of the legislation.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chairwoman of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee. and Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), the senior Democrat on the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia., have announced that they will oppose that legislation. Both apparently feel that it is more important to show support for Israel in its negotiations with the Palestinians than to support the educational, scientific and cultural activities of UNESCO.

Secretary of State Clinton meeting with UNESCO Director General Bokova

UNESCO not only implements a broad program promoting international cooperation in these fields, but it also is carrying out a number of U.S. funded projects, many of which are important to U.S. security interests and all of which have been undertaken at the initiative of the United States government. (See About the U.S. and UNESCO and U.S. Contributions to UNESCO.)

Interestingly, both Rep. Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Ackerman face redistricting, threatening their previously secure seats in the House of Representatives. The legislatures in each state will be revising Congressional districts in keeping with the changes in population revealed in the 2010 census.

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Miami), will be based in a new District 27, centered around her Miami hometown and no longer including the Keys which were the core of the district which she represents currently. In Florida a Representative need not live in the district which he/she represents, but most do.

Representative Ackerman too is facing shifts in the borders of the district that he represents. It is reported that it's possibile that Ackerman will see his district extend into a district now represented by his congressional neighbor and fellow Democrat Carolyn McCarthy of Long Island.

I previously posted links to several articles and opinion pieces (here and here) on the vote to admit UNESCO to membership in UNESCO and the consequent legal requirement to withhold U.S. contributions to the Organization. Here are some more:

• "Don’t punish UNESCO," Irina Bokova (Director General of UNESCO), The Washington Post, October 23, 2011
• "For the U.S., a forced withdrawal from UNESCO," Timothy Wirth (President of the United Nations Foundation), The Washington Post, October 24, 2011
• "Fact sheet on the PLO's bid for UNESCO membership," Institute for Middle East Understanding, October 31, 2011
• "Unesco Accepts Palestinians as Full Members," Steven Erlanger and Scott Sayare, The New York Times, October 31, 2011

The law which now requires U.S. funds to be withheld from UNESCO should be repealed or revised because it is outdated, ineffective, unnecessary, counterproductive, unclear, and potentially unenforceable. Its application to UNESCO has diminished U.S. diplomatic effectiveness, will in fact hurt the Israeli interests it was designed to protect, and -- most important -- will hurt a lot of innocent people. Readers are encouraged to contact their representatives in Congress and call for the law's repeal or revision.



The General Conference of UNESCO voted to invite Palestine to become a member state of the Organization on October 31, 2011. The actual membership is to take effect when Palestine submits its accession papers.

As the members of the General Conference had been warned, that action triggered two parts of U.S. law (US Code - Title 22: Foreign Relations and Intercourse / 22 USC 287 - Sec. 287e. Authorization of appropriations; payment of expenses):

• Pub. L. 101-246, title IV, Sec. 414, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 70, provided that: "(a) Prohibition. - No 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. "(b) Transfer or Reprogramming. - Funds subject to the prohibition contained in subsection (a) which would be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof (but for that prohibition) are authorized to remain available until expended and may be reprogrammed or transferred to any other account of the Department of State or the Agency for International Development to carry out the general purposes for which such funds were authorized." 
• Pub. L. 103-236, title IV, Sec. 410, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 454, provided that: "The United States shall not make any voluntary or assessed contribution - "(1) 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, or "(2) to the United Nations, if the United Nations grants full membership as a state in the United Nations to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, during any period in which such membership is effective."

The General Conference of UNESCO last month voted by a two-thirds majority to admit Palestine as a member state. The United States opposed the admission primarily on the basis that it would be counterproductive to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. U.S. laws passed two decades ago required that the United States Government withhold its funding of any UN agency that admitted Palestine as a member state. Consequently, that funding which currently accounts for 22 percent of UNESCO's regular budget and several million dollars of voluntary contributions is being withheld. This is causing a financial crisis in the UNESCO Secretariat.

• "Reporters again turn State Dep’t briefing into moshpit, scorning US ‘impotence’ in the conflict," Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, November 3, 2011
• "Cutting Off Unesco, U.S. May Endanger Programs in Iraq and Afghanistan," Steven Erlanger, The New York Times, November 16, 2011
• "US shouldn’t forfeit influence within UN," Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), The Hill, November 21, 2011
• "UNESCO Science Braces for a Big Squeeze," Daniel Strain, Science, November 25, 2011
• "UNESCO Promotes Peace, Not Conflict," Neil Ford, The Huffington Post, November 28, 2011
• "US withdrawal of UNESCO funds puzzling," Kate Jenson, The Rice Thresher, December 1, 2011
• "Without the U.S., UNESCO would be greatly diminished," Herbie Hancock, The Washington Post, December 2, 2011

UNESCO continues to deal with the recent loss of U.S. funding.

The General Conference of UNESCO has voted to accept Palestine as a Member State of the Organization. U.S. law requires that if a specialized agency of the United Nations accepts as a member an entity that does not meet the international standards to be considered a nation, then then the United States must withhold its contributions to that agency. It seems clear that the law was specifically intended to deny Palestinian membership in these agencies. Shortly after the vote, the United States government announced that in compliance with that law, the United States would withhold the final contribution for 2011 (some $60 million).


Here are some added materials on that situation:

• The speech by UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova on the budgetary measures to be taken in response to the shortfall of funding (Video; the first part is in French without subtitles, the second in English).
• "State Still Making the Case for UNESCO Funding", Josh Rogin, The Cable (Foreign Policy blog)
• "UNESCO Approves Palestinian Membership Bid – A Case for US Countermeasures Against the Organization?", Christiane Ahlborn, European Journal of International Law
• "INTERVIEW: UNESCO-chief: We'll pull through - just - without US funds", Ralf E. Krueger, M&C News
• "US Funding Freeze Threatens UNESCO Science", Yojana Sharma, SciDev.Net
• "Sen. Gillibrand wrong on UNESCO", Laura Myerson and Cortlandt Manor, Lohud.com
• "American UNESCO Official On U.S. Funding Cut Off: ‘The Ramifications Are Serious’ In Iraq And Afghanistan", Ben Armbruster, Think Progress
• "Cutting Off Unesco, U.S. May Endanger Programs in Iraq and Afghanistan", Steven Erlanger, The New York Times

UNESCO Water Specialist Casey Walther working on a project in Iraq