America Looks Willful with Its UNESCO Exit

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 13 October 2017
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Yuzhi Yang. Edited by Elizabeth Cosgriff.
The U.S. State Department announced the country’s exit from UNESCO, a decision effective on Dec. 31, 2018. Rex Tillerson, the American secretary of state, previewed the decision during September’s United Nations General Assembly. His version was that, after its exit, America will still exert some influence at UNESCO via an observer role.

Washington has already left the Paris climate agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership, and now UNESCO as well. These exits have managed to outline the partial shape of Trumpism.

America has ceased paying its UNESCO dues since 2011 and lost its voting power as a result. The American reasoning was to protest UNESCO’s acceptance of Palestine as a member state. In addition, in 1984, America also left UNESCO and didn’t rejoin until 2003.

The exit would cancel more than $500 million of membership dues owed to UNESCO, which might be one of Washington’s motivations in leaving the organization. Also, the Republican Party has always felt the U.N. is very inefficient in realizing America’s interests. The State Department’s excuse of UNESCO’s “bias toward Israel” may not be the truth.

America was UNESCO’s largest source of membership fees, contributing 22 percent to the total, so its exit would undoubtedly create a negative influence, impacting America’s soft power and hurting its image and reputation, which is similar to the fallout from America’s exit from the Paris climate agreement. Unlike the previous administrations, the current American government does not value soft power as much, and is more focused on building America’s hard power.

As the world’s only superpower, America has always tried to balance between two different ways of doing things: one, using the United Nations and other multilateral mechanisms to promote America’s interests, and two, using American power to directly coerce all sides to gravitate toward America’s interests. The former could make any mission more legitimate, but is not as efficient; the latter method is more instantaneous, but also has more risk. America’s Democratic administrations tend to lean toward the first way while Republican administrations prefer the second method.

The current American government likes to emphasize reviving its economy and boosting employment, is willing to increase military spending, and is in favor of strengthening its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, America is exiting multiple international organizations and mechanisms, believing that they’re useless, or even blocking America’s way. It is obvious that Washington thinks the effect of increasing and generating hard American power is worth any losses from abandoning international cooperation.

Washington’s lack of hesitation in putting America first will affect international relations for the foreseeable future. Past international cooperation has become labeled as some sort of “politically correct” behavior, and Washington is breaking this trend first. All international partnerships’ moral persuasion and trustworthiness will be damaged. A country’s soft power will be increasingly questioned, while hard power will be more valued.

When a country has more hard power, it can be more impulsive; this is what Washington is showing to the world. After America has made these important exit decisions, whether existing international organizations and mechanisms could continue to function, and whether the void Washington has created could be properly filled by various parties’ efforts, will be a critical test for the international world. It remains to be seen if, after America has scattered the existing mechanisms, these mechanisms could generate more power, and attract America back into their fold. It will be a tug of war between America and the world.


美国国务院12日宣布退出联合国教科文组织(UNESCO),这一决定将于2018年12月31日生效。蒂勒森国务卿曾在9月联合国大会期间传递出这一信息,当时他的说法是,退出后美国将以观察员国身份在教科文组织中继续保持影响。

  华盛顿已经退出了巴黎气候协定和TPP,现在又退出UNESCO,这些退出行动连起来勾勒出“特朗普主义”的部分轮廓。

  美国2011年就停止向UNESCO提供会费,从而失去了在该组织中的表决权。当时美国给出的理由是抗议UNESCO接纳巴勒斯坦为成员国。另外早在1984年美国曾退出过UNESCO一次,直到2003年才重新加入。

  让已经累计拖欠UNESCO的5亿多美元会费一笔勾销,应是华盛顿此时退出该组织的主要考虑之一。另外共和党一直嫌联合国机构对实现美国利益效率低下。至于美国国务院强调退出的最重要原因是该组织“存在针对以色列的偏见”,这未必是华盛顿的真心话。

  作为唯一超级大国,美国一直在两条路线之间做权衡,一是通过联合国等多边机制推行美国利益,二是直接使用美国的实力胁迫各方向美国的利益靠拢。前一种做法是可以增加行动的合法性,但“效率低”。后一种做法有些时候在效果上更立竿见影,但也会伴随更多风险。民主党政府大多倾向前一种路线,共和党政府则倾向后一种。

  UNESCO会费的最大来源本来是美国,占了22%,美国的退出肯定会产生负面影响。对美国的影响是软实力方面的,它会损害美国的道德形象和威望,这与美国退出巴黎气候协定是相似的。不过美国现任政府不像前几届政府那样看重软实力,它对加强构建美国的硬实力更感兴趣。

  美国政府当下强调振兴国家经济,抓就业,很舍得增加军费,主张强化核武库,同时退出了多个国际组织和机制,认为它们“没用”,甚至觉得它们“挡了美国的道”。华盛顿显然认为增加和动员美国硬实力所产生的效果足以补偿其退出国际合作所造成的损失。

华盛顿的做法是对“美国优先”主张毫不犹豫的落实,这将对未来一段时间国际关系的基本氛围产生影响。过去加强合作已是国际间的某种“政治正确”,现在华盛顿带头打破了它。合作的道德感召力和可信赖性都将受损,软实力会受到更多质疑,而硬实力将被更多推崇。

  硬实力强大就可以有更多任性,这是华盛顿向世界的一种示范。在美国做出这些重大退出决定后,原有国际组织和机制能否坚持有效运行,华盛顿留下的真空能否经各方努力得到填补,将是重要考验。是美国将原有机制冲散,还是那些机制反而释放出更大能量,最后将美国吸引回来,这将是美国与世界的一场拔河。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Russia: This Can’t Go On Forever*

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Topics

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Mexico: Big Tech and the Police State

Related Articles

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Switzerland: U.S. Travel Bans: On Immigration Policy, Trump Is Anything but Erratic

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy