Slashdot Mirror
US Defunds UNESCO After Palestine Vote
gzipped_tar writes "The U.S. withdrew funding after the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's Palestine membership vote yesterday. The decision was triggered by a 1994 US law that requires financial ties to be cut with any UN agency that accords the Palestinians full membership. As Palestine actively pursues entrance to other UN agencies, the defunding list could grow. Interestingly, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) could also be among Palestine's next target, and U.S. is the big supporter of WIPO. A much more disturbing scenario is Palestine joining the International Atomic Energy Agency, cutting American funding to the organization that monitors nuclear proliferation in states like Iran."
UNESCO is one of the most highly regarded and wide-spread agencies for cultural preservation in the World. There is a fundamental flaw in a law predicating U.S. contributions to the United Nations and U.N. affiliates on their members voting a certain way. UNESCO does not control its members and how they vote.
The fact that a majority of UNESCO members want to grant admission to a Palestinian state is no reason for the U.S. to "pick up its marbles and go home." UNESCO would be better with U.S. participation. The U.S. would be better off by participating in UNESCO.
This law should be repealed before the US has removed itself from every UN organization in the world.
Yes, of course, the U.S.'s discrimination against Palestine in all matters is very helpful. The U.S. said the peace process benefits from pulling out of UNESCO, so of course it does. Just as funding Israel's military and violations of International Law helps the peace process.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
That's because you're using the wrong definition of "terror organizations". You're probably thinking it means "people who target and kill large numbers of civilians, typically in order to push a geopolitical agenda".
But the definition of "terror organizations" used by major news outlets, including the New York Times, is "People who use violence to oppose the United States and/or Israel". That, by definition, means the US can't support terror organizations. Also, note that the same organization that were "freedom fighters" becomes a "terror organization" as soon as they switch from fighting the USSR to fighting the US.
I am officially gone from
And now the power has shifted, and the other side is showing what they've learned. (Hint: Nothing about how to be good people, lots about how to sell oppression.)
I fail to see progress.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
This is an excellent news for Unesco, It did leave it alone from 1984 till 2002/3 and this was mutch better than the years between 2003 and Now.
First it will remove a large cadre of US employees from Unesco staff, and since there is a total disconnect between the US point of view on education and culture and the rest of the world it will enable the Unesco to work more efficiently without having to focus on making large american corporations and large US private universities happy.
It also shows how spitefull the current administration is (well the other party would probably do the same), influence at the unesco is largelly dependent on the size of each state contribution, so the US with 22% would have buried the palestinian, in practice maybe one or two managers and at most half a dozen palestinian employees will be hired, and probably mostly active in some cultural history preservation task in the middle east.
The US could have said publicly that the vote of Unesco is not binding for them, and that the officially "protest" the cooptation of a non state as a full member, but that they would go on working with Unesco to further cultural, etc....
But no, they have to "punish" the UN, well certainly there are a lot of undemocratic and unsavory regime who have influence there, but remember many are "allies" of the US, and there is no easy way to get people of the world represented.
To those who think that the US should "remove itself from the UN", just remember that this would in practice mean that "big countries" would unilaterally govern by "divide and conquer", so in the "best (from US point of view) case" you would have an "imperial republic" leading the world by having a small minority (only about 5% of the world population are US citizens) vote for everybody else, in the more likely case you would have the Communist Party of China ruling the world... (US waste of money in the financial system created the crisis which now pushes the European to borrow money from the PRC, how long do you think it will take till you have to pay the interests ?).
So meanwhile thank you very much leaving the Unesco alone...
Its funny how there is so much concern for the lack of funding that may result from this. But there is 0 concern that the Palestinian organization/ terrorist groups (aka Hamas) that make up their government are not forced to comply with the standards established by the organization. It supposed to support peace, freedom right and understanding. I didn't know supporting suicide bombings was a plus on the application. The bottom line is just a couple of weeks ago the Palestinians cheered many returned from jail for committing unspeakable acts of murder on civilians and the UN member countries (most of which are run by thuggish dictators) looked the other way. The UN has a long history of antisemitism, from the Durban conference to multiple other examples. The US foots far too much of the bill for these organizations as it is. If they want to continue in their racist ways, it shouldn't be on our dime. PS this isn't just for new projects, UNSECO won't get another dime going forward. Other agencies should keep this in mind before supporting a group on multiple terrorist list (Hamas) with a full membership in a international body.
Please grant Palestine full membership in WIPO, preferably yesterday.
Which organizations were freedom fighters and became terror organizations? Most of the Mujahideen who were the freedom fighters we supported against the Russians became the norther alliance which was very much opposed to the Taliban and Al Quada. That opposition had more to do with tribal tensions than geopolitical ideals, but the guys we backed last time are mostly the guys working with us this time (despite the fact that we left them with near zero support last time once our geopolitical aims were achieved). The one bad thing about our allies over there is not that they want to kill us, it's that they are addicted to the opium money.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Thinking Israel is no better than all the other fuckers over there in the armpit of the world is hardly antisemitism.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
As an American, I think we should be much less involved in world affairs, we have our own problems to deal with. Let the rest of the world police itself. That being said, I get sick and tired of assholes (like parent AC) that criticize and bash the U.S. while living in a country that most likely takes aid from us and/or has been protected by our military at their Governments request.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
The one thing that pisses me off more than Jew haters are the people who consistently play the antisemitism card.
If I don't agree with one bonehead decision from Israel, it's because it's a bonehead decision.
If I think Avigdor Lieberman is an asshole, it really is because he's an asshole.
I couldn't care less about religion.
How about 8,000 rockets launched into Israel in the last 10 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
Or blowing up a school bus full of kids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivim_school_bus_massacre
Or hundreds of other attacks on unarmed civilians.
I'm not trying to establish moral equivalence or paint them as the sole bad guys or any other kind of oversimplification. I'm just trying to point out that if you're not aware of why the Palestinians are regarded with deep suspicion, then you really don't know anything at all about the nature of the conflict.
The Palestinians are hoisting the U.S by it's own petard. The U.S. government passed the 1994 law as a "do what we say or else" measure, under the false belief that this would force the UN to follow U.S. policy. Instead, the Palestinians are being admitted to UN agencies anway, and we're cutting our own throat automatically.
It's not the Palestinians who should be worried.
All about me
That's because every Muslim country votes for any anti-Israel measure, then so do Russia and China just to take a jab at the US by opposing Israel.
Tell that to the prominent Muslims whose policy is that Israel should be wiped from the Earth. This is Iran's policy, this is the policy of Hamas. The only way the Jews will be allowed to live there is under Muslim rule as second-class citizens.
Yes, I know the Muslim definition of hate speech -- anything that exposes their violent history and their genocidal goals. That's why they've been trying to get a ban on "defamation of religion" passed in the UN. And unlike US defamation law, the truth will not be a defense.
Palestinians did hijack Pan Am Flight 73 and did kill several American citizens during the standoff. I'm fairly certain that's not the only case, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to dig them all up to pander to your disingenuous feigned ignorance.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Ah frame things the way you do = tell the truth. There is nothing Israels supporters hate more than the truth about
the situation. Calling people names who dont beleive the lies is pathetic.
Palestinian statehood is only a temporary situation until they can destroy Israel. They admit this. It is a solution only if your end goal is a world without Israel.
The only obvious real solution is for the world to let Israel defend itself, for the Palestinians to know that attacks on Israel will be met with extreme retaliation, for Muslims to give up their third most holy site and allow Israel to have their one, and for all the other Muslim countries residing within the historical area of Palestine (present-day Syria, Lebanon and Jordan) to absorb their Palestinian populations instead of talking about "right of return" since those people are still in Palestine.
Under the Symington Amendment, we're not allowed to give aide to nuclear nations who won't sign onto the NTP. They get around the legality of it, with a don't ask, don't tell policy. But everyone knows Israel has nukes, so it really is a flagrant violation of US law.
"The law was passed in 1994. It sounds like the administration of George H W Bush was the cause."
?
Clinton was elected in 1992 and sworn in in early 1993.
At first I thought maybe you were meaning the changeover in congressional majority. But the Republican majority in the house was elected in Novemeber 1994, but didn't take office until early 1995.
... and exactly who is pointing a gun at your goverment head to make it waste all those billions in defense? The american military industry, that is who; now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
"Less american influence, the better the world will be."
Agreed, and the less Americans will be blamed for outcomes.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I actually spent several summers working in Israel, and regularly visited the West Bank. Couldn't get access to Gaza though.
As for your questions: The West Bank and (especially) Gaza are effectively light-duty concentration camps. (Not dedicated, but high-density with low access to food, water, sanitation, or jobs.) Mass graves tend to draw attention. (And direct killing isn't the system being used here.) The ~10% of the Knesset (none of whom are Palestinian: they have to be Israeli) aren't a major political force of their own. And the random police checks, and the requirement that every Palestinian who wants to enter Israel (which means any of them who want to leave their home town for any reason...) register for travel papers, in person, every year, would be similar in effect.
Of course, a closer parallel would be with aparthied-era South Africa.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
"Also - can someone post a link to this supposed 1994 law?
It was part of a spending bill covering foreing relations for 1994 and 1995:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h103-2333
Section 410 is the part in question. It's described in the legislative summary at:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h103-2333&tab=summary
Text:
Section 410 -
Prohibits U.S. contributions to any affiliated organization of the United Nations or to the United Nations if they grant full membership as a state to a group that does not have internationally recognized attributes of statehood.
The final law is actually P.L. 103-246 Title IV US Code.
Digging down into convoluted listings of the US Code is best left to someone with more legal-researcher-fu than I. But that should help someone else get started.
That is good, but it doesn't address Brad's question. It is our government and its vulgar display of power that is being complained about and that Brad is pointing out the world wants when it benefits them. I am with Brad in wishing our government would get out of most of the countries and scale back our military significantly, but he is right that a good portion of the rest of the world criticizes our government from their face, while asking for handouts (cash and military services) from the other side of it.
It's always easy to tell when someone is uneducated on the subject of Israeli and Palestinian relations because they blame one side or the other when there is equal fault on both sides.
Small army terror attacks? You need to learn a little history.
The reality is BOTH SIDES of done some awful shit. Anyone who tries to blame one side or the other is just ignorant to the entirety of the situation.
Polling suggests Americans as a whole could give a rip about Palestinian issues, and support Israel if they think about it at all. Thus, the tune is increasingly called by Christian Zionists, to the point where Jewish Zionists have become the tail wagged by the dog. So it goes in Congress.
If/when the Palestinian Authority is admitted to the WIPO and WTO, it'll get really interesting. P.L. 101-246, Title IV (1990) and P.L. 103-236, Title IV (1994) can be amended, and a wide range of large contributors to Congressional races are probably already drafting suitable language, JIC. But, when push comes to shove, who will want it more: big money, or big religion?
Luke, help me take this mask off
They have a homeland, it's called Jordan. Many got kicked out of it because they tried to overthrow the monarchy there. The rest bailed when the other arab countries tried to wipe Israel off the map and Israel won. Land gained in defensive wars is not illegal, and people who flee on the belief that the systematic genocide of another people will entitle them to that land don't deserve it either.
Om, nomnomnom...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries (US = 19th).
Breakdown of US foreign aid by country (Warning this makes for confronting reading):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid
The top three recipients of US foreign aid: Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel. Remove the aid for these countries, and total US foreign aid contributions are easily outstripped by any number of OECD countries.
Notably, most reliable data does not include the breakdown of 'devleopment' relief versus humanitarian relief: see here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/25/41724314.pdf
Note that 'bilateral development relief' means that the donor country attaches specific requirements to the aid, e.g. this aid is for a bridge, or power station, and it must be built by contractors from the donor country. Also not mentioned is the other purpose, which is simply to purchase influence. Which brings us to China. Why is China spending so much money in Africa?
http://www.cgdev.org/files/13953_file_Chinese_aid.pdf They are not being charitable, they are just purchasing votes from those countries in key contests. Consider what happened at the Copenhagen round of climate discussions - a major diplomatic loss for the west, and a major win for China. Why? Because China (or more accurately BRIC (Brazil/Russia/India/China) ) bought Africa.
By the relatively paucity of it's foreign aid budget, the US is effectively eating it's own young.