Palestine voted into UNESCO, USA cuts funding

[Solmyr]

No thread on this yet?

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2011/11/01/palestine_becomes_member_of_unesco_us_cuts_funds/

Palestine becomes member of UNESCO, US cuts funds
By Sarah DiLorenzo and Bradley Klapper
Associated Press / November 1, 2011

PARIS—Palestine won its greatest international endorsement yet on Monday, full membership in UNESCO, but the move will cost the agency one-fifth of its funding and some fear will send Mideast peace efforts off a cliff.

In an unusually dramatic session at the Paris-based United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, there were cheers for "yes" votes and grumbles for the "no's" and abstentions. When the results were in, many delegates jumped to their feet and applauded and someone let out a cry of "Long live Palestine!" in French.

"Joy fills my heart. This is really a historic moment," said Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki. "It's the return of he who was banished."

But the jubilation was quickly pierced by reality: The United States said it wouldn't make a $60 million payment to fill out its contributions for this year and would suspend all future funding.

UNESCO depends heavily on that money -- Washington provides 22 percent of its budget -- but has survived without it in the past: The United States pulled out of UNESCO under President Ronald Reagan, rejoining two decades later under President George W. Bush.

Monday's vote was a grand symbolic victory for the Palestinians, but it alone won't make Palestine a state. The issues of borders for an eventual Palestinian state, security, a solution for Palestinian refugees, the fate of Jerusalem and other disputes that have thwarted Middle East peace for decades remain unresolved. Some argued it would even make it harder for the Palestinians to reach their goal.

White House spokesman Jay Carney called UNESCO's decision "premature" and said it undermines the international community's efforts toward a comprehensive Middle East peace plan. He called it a distraction from the goal of restarting direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israeli Ambassador Nimrod Barkan said the decision did "a great disservice to international law and to chances for peace."

"UNESCO deals in science, not science fiction," he said in a speech to delegates after the vote. "However, a large number of member states, though most emphatically less than two-thirds of the member states of this organization, have adopted a science fiction version of reality."

His government said it was reconsidering its cooperation with UNESCO.

The request to grant Palestine full membership passed 107-14, with 52 abstentions. Eighty-one votes were needed for approval -- or two-thirds of the 173 eligible member delegations present. There are now 195 members in all.

In a surprise, France voted "yes" -- and the room erupted in cheers. It was joined by Ireland, Austria and the Arab states. The "no" votes included the United States, Israel, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany, while many American allies abstained, including Japan, Britain and New Zealand.

Monday's vote is definitive, and the membership formally takes effect when Palestine signs UNESCO's founding charter.

It is part of a broader Palestinian quest for greater international recognition in hopes of moving closer to statehood through channels other than simply negotiations with Israel.

There, however, are concerns that strategy could backfire. Before the vote, Israel's outspoken foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said that if the measure passed, Israel should cut off ties with the Palestinian Authority. It was not clear whether he was voicing government policy.

By contrast, Malki said he hoped the vote would only provide momentum for the Palestinians' quest for statehood. But he added that it was no substitute for the Palestinians' more high-profile request for admission to the United Nations.

The Obama administration has vowed to use its veto power in the Security Council to quash Palestinian membership in the broader U.N., but had been hoping it wouldn't come to that since wielding its veto could undermine the United States' typically pivotal role as negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians.

However, Malki, indicated Monday that he thought he had enough support to win a Security Council vote, which has not yet been scheduled.

UNESCO, like many U.N. agencies, is a part of the world body but has separate membership procedures and can make its own decisions about which countries belong. The disconnect between memberships is rare but not unprecedented. Two tiny Pacific island nations -- the Cook Islands and Niue -- are members of UNESCO but not the U.N., while Liechtenstein belongs to the larger world body but not the cultural agency.

Even if the vote's impact isn't felt right away in the Mideast, it will be quickly felt at UNESCO, which protects historic heritage sites and works to improve world literacy, access to schooling for girls and cultural understanding. One of the first concrete results of Palestine's membership could be that the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is listed as a world heritage site; the Palestinians have already prepared an application for the traditional birthplace of Jesus.

In addition to the reduction in funding, the vote will also set back UNESCO's efforts in recent years to shed its image as an anti-Israeli agency. When the U.S. pulled out of UNESCO in the 1980s, it was to protest the passage of a resolution equating Zionism with racism.

UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova has been at the forefront of remaking the agency's image, and she expressed concern about the vote's effect.

"It is my responsibility to say that I am concerned by the potential challenges that may arise to the universality and financial stability of the organization," Bokova said. "I am worried we may confront a situation that could erode UNESCO as a universal platform for dialogue. I am worried for the stability of its budget."

While the U.S. has cut off funding -- which typically amounts to $80 million annually -- Washington has said it will remain a member, though if it fails to pay its dues for two years, it will lose its vote.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it was up to member states "to ensure the United Nations system as a whole consistent political and financial support."

"As such, we will need to work on tactical solutions to preserve UNESCO's financial resources," he said, while urging a negotiated solution to Mideast peace.

What the fuck did UNESCO expect to happen, anyway?

[Martinus]

Why would the US be opposed to that? It's not like it's the UN Security Council. Isn't it good that Palestine would cooperate on UNESCO goals, which are valid and worthy?

[crazy canuck]

Why would the US be opposed to that? It's not like it's the UN Security Council. Isn't it good that Palestine would cooperate on UNICEF goals, which are valid and worthy?

I suppose no one should be suprised you are blind to what is actually happening and why this vote took place.  But for your benefit let me try one more time.

someone let out a cry of "Long live Palestine!"

[Valmy]

Well what is there to say?

How can Palestine even be voted into this organization if they are not a state...or are they a state?  *shrug*

"Joy fills my heart. This is really a historic moment," said Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki. "It's the return of he who was banished."

Really?  This moment?  And when was Palestine banned from UNESCO?  What just happened  here?

[Sheilbh]

Well what is there to say?

How can Palestine even be voted into this organization if they are not a state...or are they a state?  *shrug*

...

Really?  This moment?  And when was Palestine banned from UNESCO?  What just happened  here?

It's part of the PA's push for UN recognition of a Palestinian state.  They basically argue - rightly in my view - that the current Israeli government isn't interested in negotiating for a two-state solution, that they're stalling at best.  So they're going to push for international recognition.  Palestine hasn't been a state for UN purposes, they' just got observer status.  By getting membership of UN bodies they are getting recognised by the UN as a state.  The US will veto in the Security Council so the Palestinians are pushing for this through the separate bodies, then the General Assembly, then the Security Council where they want a majority even though the US will veto.

The US Congress has I believe passed a bill that will remove funding for all UN bodies who recognise Palestine as a state.  They initially planned to cut all funding to the PA, but I think this was avoided after intense lobbying by the Israelis who pointed out that the PA's security forces are pretty important and helpful to Israel.

[Martinus]

I find it rather disgusting that for the US, the "red line", beyond which they will not provide funding to an otherwise helpful and useful organization, is the implied recognition of the Palestinian state.

I have not realized the Jewish lobby in Washington DC is so powerful.

[Valmy]

They basically argue - rightly in my view - that the current Israeli government isn't interested in negotiating for a two-state solution, that they're stalling at best.

Well that was the exact view the Israelis were using for their own unilateral disengagement during the Sharon years was it not?  That the Palestinians could not be trusted in negotiations?

In any case I have a hard time seeing how having a state to sanction whenever Palestinians behave badly would be a bad thing.

[Zoupa]

Well what is there to say?

How can Palestine even be voted into this organization if they are not a state...or are they a state?  *shrug*

...

Really?  This moment?  And when was Palestine banned from UNESCO?  What just happened  here?

It's part of the PA's push for UN recognition of a Palestinian state.  They basically argue - rightly in my view - that the current Israeli government isn't interested in negotiating for a two-state solution, that they're stalling at best.  So they're going to push for international recognition.  Palestine hasn't been a state for UN purposes, they' just got observer status.  By getting membership of UN bodies they are getting recognised by the UN as a state.  The US will veto in the Security Council so the Palestinians are pushing for this through the separate bodies, then the General Assembly, then the Security Council where they want a majority even though the US will veto.

The US Congress has I believe passed a bill that will remove funding for all UN bodies who recognise Palestine as a state.  They initially planned to cut all funding to the PA, but I think this was avoided after intense lobbying by the Israelis who pointed out that the PA's security forces are pretty important and helpful to Israel.

i believe it wasn't a bill but a treaty from the 90s between israel amd the US that prevents US funding of any organization recognizing Palestine in the absence of an accord between Israel and the Palestinians.

[MadImmortalMan]

Well what is there to say?

How can Palestine even be voted into this organization if they are not a state...or are they a state?  *shrug*

...

Really?  This moment?  And when was Palestine banned from UNESCO?  What just happened  here?

It's part of the PA's push for UN recognition of a Palestinian state.  They basically argue - rightly in my view - that the current Israeli government isn't interested in negotiating for a two-state solution, that they're stalling at best.  So they're going to push for international recognition.  Palestine hasn't been a state for UN purposes, they' just got observer status.  By getting membership of UN bodies they are getting recognised by the UN as a state.  The US will veto in the Security Council so the Palestinians are pushing for this through the separate bodies, then the General Assembly, then the Security Council where they want a majority even though the US will veto.

The US Congress has I believe passed a bill that will remove funding for all UN bodies who recognise Palestine as a state.  They initially planned to cut all funding to the PA, but I think this was avoided after intense lobbying by the Israelis who pointed out that the PA's security forces are pretty important and helpful to Israel.

I thought the main tripwire for US/Israel supporting recognition was reciprocal recognition for Israel. Is that not right?

[Sheilbh]

Well that was the exact view the Israelis were using for their own unilateral disengagement during the Sharon years was it not?  That the Palestinians could not be trusted in negotiations?

To some extent.  Part of it was motivated by the cost both economic and military of keeping settlements in Gaza.  It makes me wish Sharon was still around to lead though

On this because of the UNESCO vote the Israeli government's apparently considering the expansion of settlements.

[Sheilbh]

I thought the main tripwire for US/Israel supporting recognition was reciprocal recognition for Israel. Is that not right?

The PA's recognised Israel since the 90s.  The issue is a bilateral, negotiated settlement leading to a two-state solution vs this unilateral declaration by the Palestinians. 

Part of the issue is that a negotiated settlement will have different borders, while this declaration is based on 1967 borders.  As I've said before I think if the Israelis had played this well they should have jumped on the resolution and challenged the Arab world to endorse Israel's right to exist in the UN - for this reason the Iranians also oppose the UN approach.  As it is I think they have but the Israelis haven't made much of it and it's sort of being ignored.

[Valmy]

To some extent.  Part of it was motivated by the cost both economic and military of keeping settlements in Gaza.  It makes me wish Sharon was still around to lead though

You and me both.  The Sharon years were the only time I had any sort of optimism about the Palestine-Israel question.

On this because of the UNESCO vote the Israeli government's apparently considering the expansion of settlements.

Figures.

[Malthus]

I thought the main tripwire for US/Israel supporting recognition was reciprocal recognition for Israel. Is that not right?

The PA's recognised Israel since the 90s.  The issue is a bilateral, negotiated settlement leading to a two-state solution vs this unilateral declaration by the Palestinians. 

Part of the issue is that a negotiated settlement will have different borders, while this declaration is based on 1967 borders.  As I've said before I think if the Israelis had played this well they should have jumped on the resolution and challenged the Arab world to endorse Israel's right to exist in the UN - for this reason the Iranians also oppose the UN approach.  As it is I think they have but the Israelis haven't made much of it and it's sort of being ignored.

The problem is that while the PA has recognized Israel, Hamas has not, and Hamas is either (a) the legitimately elected government of Palestine, or (b) part of the recent Hamas-PA accord government, take your pick.

In short, while it would be comforting to pretend as thge UN appears likely to do that the PA is the legitimate government for an entity identifiable as "Palestine", this is far from the truth: granting the PA recognized statehood will not simplify matters but complicate them, as who will this state consist of? The WB, or the WB and Gaza? How will that work, when Gaza is governed by an elected party (albeit of thugs) who do not want any part of "statehood", and will not recognize the right of their neigbour to exist? If it is only the WB, the problem is that now there are three effective states, not two. 

[Sheilbh]

You and me both.  The Sharon years were the only time I had any sort of optimism about the Palestine-Israel question.

Shame that most of his Premiership he was dealing with Arafat.  I think Abbas, Sharon and Fayyed could have worked towards something better.

[Sheilbh]

The problem is that while the PA has recognized Israel, Hamas has not, and Hamas is either (a) the legitimately elected government of Palestine, or (b) part of the recent Hamas-PA accord government, take your pick.

In short, while it would be comforting to pretend as thge UN appears likely to do that the PA is the legitimate government for an entity identifiable as "Palestine", this is far from the truth: granting the PA recognized statehood will not simplify matters but complicate them, as who will this state consist of? The WB, or the WB and Gaza? How will that work, when Gaza is governed by an elected party (albeit of thugs) who do not want any part of "statehood", and will not recognize the right of their neigbour to exist? If it is only the WB, the problem is that now there are three effective states, not two.

The PA is the recognised government of Palestine - they're the ones recognised by everyone from Israel to the Quartet.  Hamas have withdrawn from that though they were the elected government and have forced a semi-independence on Gaza.  This is a huge issue.  There need to be elections again and Abbas is making a mistake in delaying them - not least because I think if Hamas allowed them in Gaza they'd lose big. 

But it's clear that this UN plan has been Fayyed and Abbas's idea, like Iran,  I think Hamas would object to a Palestinian state being recognised and an Israeli state being recognised by the world.  You're right that it doesn't actually practically do much but I don't think that was the intention.  It's always been the PA's argument that they're delivering security to the Israelis and building a state so they can become a state.  This is more symbolic than anything.

Personally, I don't think it it's helpful or necessarily the right thing to do.  But I've always supported the idea that the PA should be supported as it builds a state, so as it develops the security apparatus, the infrastrucutre, the economy and the governing structures.  I've supported that because I believe in a two state solution.  I think the PA's closer to delivering than ever before, that should be encouraged and I can see how disheartening it must be for them to work on that but then face no steps forward in negotiations with Israel and an inability to reassert themselves in Gaza.