The U.S. Gave Russia a Foolish Example
Published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 4 November 2011
by Evgeniy Shestakov (link to original)
In the coming week, Palestinian autonomy will wage yet another attack on the United States. Judging from the announced plans of the Middle Eastern region, the White House will be in trouble. Ultimately embarking on a “war path” against Washington, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas promises to continue the petition campaign. This time institutions such as the World Health Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization will be subject to invasion.
Precisely to these organizations will Palestine, as a fledgling member of UNESCO, turn for recognition of its rights as an independent government. It is not clear which Palestine is in question — with the Gaza Strip, in which Hamas dominates, regarded by many countries as a terrorist movement, or without it, in fragmented form. Nevertheless, Abbas is assuming, not without reason, that a confirmation of Palestine’s full rights of autonomy as an independent country will come from both international organizations and elicit a “hurray” from most voices.
On their end, American congressmen have warned of a 100 percent cut to funds and a withdrawal from those United Nations organizations that will recognize Palestine’s independence in a unilateral fashion. First on the list to be “sent flying” is UNESCO. All the attempts of its Director-General, Bulgarian Irina Bokova, to convince the White House not to cut its funding were met with a cold explanation: No one in the United States has the right to breach legislation passed by the Congress. Now UNESCO will have to pay the price for recognizing Palestinian autonomy in a circumvention of the U.N. Security Council.
The Director-General’s actions will cost UNESCO a minimum of 22 percent of its budget. Yet, the losses will likely be even greater — not only have the United States and Israel declared a cut to funding, but Canada as well. It can’t be ruled out that other members of UNESCO opposed to Palestinian membership will join in on the sanctions. Washington has already frozen a $60 million transfer to the U.N. subdivision for November.
Russia welcomed UNESCO’s decision for full membership for Palestine. Moscow supported the initiative despite the fact that it doesn’t correspond to standard U.N. procedures and may threaten the prestige of the countries in the Security Council, including Russia.
Why did Moscow so easily agree to yet another violation of international law, according to which only the Security Council and the General Assembly can confirm the emergence of new nations? Granted, Russia was always sympathetic to the plans of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to create an independent government, but nevertheless insisted on a realization of this plan on the basis of an agreement between Palestine and Israel.
This precedent set by UNESCO corresponds to the interest of our country in the long term. For what happened really? An international organization, created for the realization of U.N. programs in the cultural sphere and essentially representative of a club united by shared humanitarian interests, revolted. It effectively brought forth to a vote an incredibly serious geopolitical question about Palestinian independence, having little to do with culture. For its part, however, the United States has set quite a symbolic precedent. Proceeding on formal grounds, it has refused to pay membership dues to an organization that has taken actions contrary to American interests. The conflict surrounding UNESCO destroys the present system of international organizations, in many of which, by the way, the United States and its allies have thus far dominated.
Nevertheless, countries displeased with the pro-American politics of these organizations tolerated this situation, deciding against public scandals and slamming doors. In Russia, the question of withdrawing from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has surfaced on numerous occasions with regard to its pro-American approach to all issues concerning the Old World. This seemed the case especially in those subdivisions that monitor voting procedures. Yet, in the end we remained part of those structures. We even agreed to stay in the Concert of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, which just as often harshly criticized Russian politics.
The actions of the United States with regard to UNESCO clearly demonstrate how the Americans, in truth, build relationships with organizations that allow themselves any measure of free thought. If other countries were to adopt the American approach to this kind of conflict, then the entire system of international organizations would collapse like a house of cards. Not only U.N. “interest clubs” will suffer, but organizations such as the World Health Organization. Problems will arise in other international structures, directly or indirectly responsible for control systems in cases of global security. Only regional organizations whose work is limited to resolving economic issues will stay afloat. Such a global collapse of U.N. structures as a fallout from the events surrounding UNESCO will inevitably pose the question of who will take control of the world’s governance and how, determining new game rules for the international community.
Governments independent in their political arrangement, wielding nuclear potential and a strong economy, will find themselves on the winning side. Today, the majority of such countries are G-20 members. It will be left up to this “global government” to rebuild the system of international organizations, but this time with a new reality in mind. First of all, they will need to clearly delineate the rights of U.N. structures, so that “cultural subdivisions” do not deal with political decisions. Second, these newly formed organizations must no longer expressly feature the domination of Washington’s interests. So whether UNESCO’s leadership wanted it or not, by accepting the Palestinian government into its ranks, it triggered a mechanism of long-term strategic shifts in the system of international organizations.
Precisely to these organizations will Palestine, as a fledgling member of UNESCO, turn for recognition of its rights as an independent government. It is not clear which Palestine is in question — with the Gaza Strip, in which Hamas dominates, regarded by many countries as a terrorist movement, or without it, in fragmented form. Nevertheless, Abbas is assuming, not without reason, that a confirmation of Palestine’s full rights of autonomy as an independent country will come from both international organizations and elicit a “hurray” from most voices.
On their end, American congressmen have warned of a 100 percent cut to funds and a withdrawal from those United Nations organizations that will recognize Palestine’s independence in a unilateral fashion. First on the list to be “sent flying” is UNESCO. All the attempts of its Director-General, Bulgarian Irina Bokova, to convince the White House not to cut its funding were met with a cold explanation: No one in the United States has the right to breach legislation passed by the Congress. Now UNESCO will have to pay the price for recognizing Palestinian autonomy in a circumvention of the U.N. Security Council.
The Director-General’s actions will cost UNESCO a minimum of 22 percent of its budget. Yet, the losses will likely be even greater — not only have the United States and Israel declared a cut to funding, but Canada as well. It can’t be ruled out that other members of UNESCO opposed to Palestinian membership will join in on the sanctions. Washington has already frozen a $60 million transfer to the U.N. subdivision for November.
Russia welcomed UNESCO’s decision for full membership for Palestine. Moscow supported the initiative despite the fact that it doesn’t correspond to standard U.N. procedures and may threaten the prestige of the countries in the Security Council, including Russia.
Why did Moscow so easily agree to yet another violation of international law, according to which only the Security Council and the General Assembly can confirm the emergence of new nations? Granted, Russia was always sympathetic to the plans of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to create an independent government, but nevertheless insisted on a realization of this plan on the basis of an agreement between Palestine and Israel.
This precedent set by UNESCO corresponds to the interest of our country in the long term. For what happened really? An international organization, created for the realization of U.N. programs in the cultural sphere and essentially representative of a club united by shared humanitarian interests, revolted. It effectively brought forth to a vote an incredibly serious geopolitical question about Palestinian independence, having little to do with culture. For its part, however, the United States has set quite a symbolic precedent. Proceeding on formal grounds, it has refused to pay membership dues to an organization that has taken actions contrary to American interests. The conflict surrounding UNESCO destroys the present system of international organizations, in many of which, by the way, the United States and its allies have thus far dominated.
Nevertheless, countries displeased with the pro-American politics of these organizations tolerated this situation, deciding against public scandals and slamming doors. In Russia, the question of withdrawing from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has surfaced on numerous occasions with regard to its pro-American approach to all issues concerning the Old World. This seemed the case especially in those subdivisions that monitor voting procedures. Yet, in the end we remained part of those structures. We even agreed to stay in the Concert of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, which just as often harshly criticized Russian politics.
The actions of the United States with regard to UNESCO clearly demonstrate how the Americans, in truth, build relationships with organizations that allow themselves any measure of free thought. If other countries were to adopt the American approach to this kind of conflict, then the entire system of international organizations would collapse like a house of cards. Not only U.N. “interest clubs” will suffer, but organizations such as the World Health Organization. Problems will arise in other international structures, directly or indirectly responsible for control systems in cases of global security. Only regional organizations whose work is limited to resolving economic issues will stay afloat. Such a global collapse of U.N. structures as a fallout from the events surrounding UNESCO will inevitably pose the question of who will take control of the world’s governance and how, determining new game rules for the international community.
Governments independent in their political arrangement, wielding nuclear potential and a strong economy, will find themselves on the winning side. Today, the majority of such countries are G-20 members. It will be left up to this “global government” to rebuild the system of international organizations, but this time with a new reality in mind. First of all, they will need to clearly delineate the rights of U.N. structures, so that “cultural subdivisions” do not deal with political decisions. Second, these newly formed organizations must no longer expressly feature the domination of Washington’s interests. So whether UNESCO’s leadership wanted it or not, by accepting the Palestinian government into its ranks, it triggered a mechanism of long-term strategic shifts in the system of international organizations.
Next article![]( "In One Year, Obama Re-elected?")
