Palestine accepted into UNESCO, US pulls funding - Page 28

On November 13 2011 05:07 Dfgj wrote:

There is no such thing as a non-political international organization. Every organization serves state interests in some way - otherwise, they would not be part of it. Whether you are a realist or an institutionalist, this is true - states do not join institutions that do not advance or act along their aims.

You're putting too much weight on the concept of 'upset' and whether that actually matters. This is not a schoolyard where you can run to a teacher to complain. Bargaining in this case is a strict debate of power - if UNESCO acts against the US interests, the US will withdraw. This is fully understandable when you consider the reasons states join institutions. It would be irrational to support an institution that furthered goals that are not in your state's interest unless that institution furthered other goals - ie: that the result of that former issue had consequences for a more important goal you want. I doubt the US is in this situation, and thus they can comfortably abandon UNESCO.

The UN has been hit by exactly the situation you depict, with states boycotting due to various issues. However, the UN also creates far more issue linkages, and covers far more interests. Still, if the UN actively worked against the interests of a country, they would be expected to leave it. This is exactly what happened with the League of Nations prior to WW2. A major difference is that the UN has veto power for these major states who are more likely to simply abandon the institution, and thus allows them to control the direction of the UN to a degree.

And yes, being able to simply 'leave the table' is one of the most important moves in bargaining. The threat of someone simply walking away keeps people from trying to extensively exploit someone in a deal, because being too greedy can simply end the deal altogether.

On November 14 2011 00:12 Pahimarus wrote:


Ok I'm sorry but the situation is like WAY WAY more complex than these statements indicate (I know you are trying to give the super abridged version but its important it be at least moderately balanced).
First if all, if you read Israel's declaration of independence they did not in any way wish to expel the palestinians from the land under dispute (israel/palestine). Most of the palestinians left of their own volition during the 1948 war after the surrounding arab nations promised them they would destroy israel. When they subsequently failed (and at this time Israel was NOT being prominently supported by the US), the palestinians had nowhere to go. Since that time Israel has survived another war of aggression by their arab neighbors (1973) with the expressed war aim of exterminating them as a nation. They have also launched at least one war of aggression of their own (1968) during which they seized a lot of land previously held by their surrounding Arab neighbors.

The people of palestine do live in deplorable conditions in both the west bank and the gaza strip (within Israel). Certainly Israel bears much of the blame for this, but it would be unfair not to mention that much of the blame also rests squarely on the shoulders of the sub-groups of palestinians who have embraced terrorism as a method to achieve their aims. Furthermore it would also be unfair not to mention that an enormous number of Palestinians live in just as deplorable conditions confined to ghettos in the neighboring countries of their 'arab brothers' where they are treated as second class citizens and denied many basic freedoms (movement, employment, etc...). One can only conclude that it suits these nations purposes to maintain them in a situation where they are stateless and miserable because they can then use their eternal refugee status as a club against Israel. One would think that a country with a population in the millions, such as Jordan, could have figured out a way to assimilate 100k Palestinian refugees over a period of 30 years or so if they had any inclination to do so.

These are, of course just a few of the oft unmentioned points worthy of consideration in a situation this complex. The bottom line is that Israel has been the victim of a lot of deplorable behavior by both the palestinians and their arab neighbors. In return they have engaged in a lot of deplorable behavior directed against both groups. The plight of palestinians is very much worthy of sympathy and assistance, but by no means is there a single "bad guy" in this situation or a simple solution.

As for the U.S. being pro-Israel, its important to point out that the US is a democracy and does have the largest Jewish population of any nation on earth (larger than Israel in fact). Furthermore, the rest of the world doesn't exactly have a great track record on their treatment of Jews. I'm not being inflammatory here, or calling all of Europe a bunch of anti-semites, or saying that the US is all goodness and light. What I am saying is that there are historically factual reasons that most of the Ash-Kenazi jew population (those who arose in and populated Eastern Europe in the centuries prior to the twentieth) currently reside in the US or Israel. The US has always seen recognition of Palestinian statehood as part of a broader deal that would address Israel's legitimate security concerns. By accepting Palestine to UNESCO the agency is circumventing this process and treating Palestine as a nation-state. Now I'm not saying that UNESCO doesn't have every right to disagree with US foreign policy in this regard. What I am saying is, why should the US continue to fund an agency which is acting directly against their own foreign policy in an area they view as critical? It seems a perfectly reasonable response to me to pull their funding. If UNESCO believes strongly enough in their own position to take the pay cut, then good for them, but it doesn't necessarily make the US the bad guys either.

On November 14 2011 01:36 Dfgj wrote:


Sounds like finance to me. Think of it in terms of shareholding - the US owns 20% of the interests of UNESCO, and if UNESCO takes directions they do not agree with, they will simply back out. Doing otherwise would be irrational as the other members would effectively be exploiting the US to use that 20% for things that the US does not want (unless the benefits of other aspects of the organization significantly outweighed that one issue).


Consider how the objectives of organizations arise. There is no world moral code or authority to define actions, and institutions are no different - they are collective agreements among signatory members. This means the causal force is from the state to the institution, not the other way around. While institutions may establish norms for states, it is the states themselves that shape and drive these organizations because they have no power save what the states push.

You can argue that the human goals of UNESCO should bind states to act 'humanitarian' - in the long run, institutions can establish 'norms of acceptance', defining what states do by making some actions more legitimate or appropriate. However, these ideas are often sidelined by questions of power, and the general rule that states do not act against their immediate interests. In the end, UNESCO is not protecting culture - states within UNESCO are protecting culture, because that is where the power comes from.

On November 14 2011 01:44 Pahimarus wrote:


My post feels like Israel's propaganda because I'm pointing out that there are two sides to the story, where as yours is balanced because you have pointed out only the Palestinian view (calling it, "the disaster")? I've read the article you referenced and its seems fairly clear that the causes of the exodus were quite multifactorial. (Side note I was referencing the original text of the Israeli Declaration of Independence which may be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_declaration_of_independence) I don't want to wander too far afield by turning this into a debate on the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the holocaust. I think it is, however, quite historically clear that the overall Arab-Israeli conflict is complex with poor decisions and blame being distributed liberally to all participants (Palestinian, Isreali, surrounding Arab nations, and international players). Regardless, you've only addressed one of the many points I raised in my post and I'll stick to my assertion that the view that the Palestinians are solely victims in this conflict (as the post I was responding to seemed to imply) is both unfair and inaccurate.

On November 14 2011 01:48 Dfgj wrote:

I'm attempting to explain how institutions function because your arguments suggest you don't know.

'Doing its job' is not necessarily the same as 'following state interests'. The US set out a pretty clear deterrent law - include Palestine, and we pull support.

On November 14 2011 02:17 Dfgj wrote:

Institutional rigidity is a definite factor, but moreso when we're looking at how states make decisions internally, because states function in a hierarchical manner - there are checks and balances, authorities and rules. It's true, of course, that changing institutions on the global stage is an agonizingly slow process, but what your point? These organizations still only have the power states present to them, and this is why organizations like the UN have so much difficulty getting things done - besides the multilateral nature, they don't have any sovereign force of their own. Organizations cannot globally dictate actions without the support of states that share that aim - while internal organizations can, because they have a hierarchical basis of authority and the ability to enforce it. On the international stage, the influence of institutions is always something questionable, because they have little actual force to stop other states simply ignoring them.

At the end of the day, any state can, and will, act as they see fit with regards to institutional co-operation. However, as I've already stated, it's a question of interest. Smaller and less powerful states are less likely to leave institutions because their contributions are smaller and the gains are higher; there is a possibility to free-ride. More powerful states, however, contribute significantly more and thus would expect greater comparative gains, as well as the institution justifying those costs in terms of their own interests. The US being the most powerful individual state means their conflict with these institutions is most visible, but it is certainly not the only state to have done so (ie: states avoiding the NPT due to goals of nuclear proliferation, USSR boycotting the UN due to recognition of Taiwan over China, etc).

I don't know how you got 'you equal the US' power with all other states, or vice versa' out of anything I've written, but as I've explained, states with less power are more likely to bandwagon together, or free-ride off the contributions of others, than more powerful states.


The US has political interests in not having Palestine recognized, that much is generally clear. An organization that does so, therefore, is not in the interests of US policy. Specifically, UNESCO doing this means it most certainly has something to do with UNESCO.