The US and UNESCO: A Fractured Relationship and Its Global Implications

Introduction: A Pattern of Withdrawal and Re-engagement

The United States’ decision to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is not an isolated incident but part of a recurring pattern. This latest withdrawal, announced under the Trump administration, comes just two years after the US rejoined the organization, highlighting the volatile nature of this relationship. The official reasons cited—UNESCO’s promotion of “woke, divisive cultural and social causes” and an “outsized focus” on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals—reflect broader tensions between the US and international organizations. This decision marks the second time the US has withdrawn from UNESCO, raising critical questions about the long-term consequences for both the organization and US foreign policy.

A Historical Perspective: The US and UNESCO

The relationship between the US and UNESCO has been marked by periods of cooperation and conflict since the organization’s inception in 1945. The first major rupture occurred in 1984 when the Reagan administration withdrew, citing concerns about UNESCO’s alleged anti-Western bias, mismanagement, and politicization. The US rejoined in 2003 under President George W. Bush, signaling a renewed commitment to international cooperation in education, science, and culture. However, this re-engagement was short-lived.

In 2011, the Obama administration cut off funding to UNESCO after it admitted Palestine as a member, a move mandated by US law. This action further strained the relationship. The Trump administration officially withdrew from UNESCO in 2018, citing anti-Israel bias and the need for fundamental reform. The Biden administration’s decision to rejoin in 2023 was seen as a positive step toward multilateralism, but the current withdrawal reverses this policy, underscoring the inconsistency of US engagement with international organizations.

Deciphering the Accusations: “Divisive” Ideologies and UNESCO’s Mandate

The primary justification for the latest withdrawal is UNESCO’s alleged promotion of “divisive social and cultural causes.” This vague phrase encompasses several key areas of contention:

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The US has expressed concerns about UNESCO’s focus on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, adopted in 2015. These goals address global challenges such as poverty reduction, gender equality, climate action, and sustainable cities. While widely supported, critics argue that the SDGs represent a “globalist” agenda that infringes on national sovereignty and promotes specific ideological perspectives. The US views this focus as an overreach, preferring a more nationalistic approach to development and policy.

Israel-Palestine Conflict

UNESCO’s stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been a persistent source of tension. The US has accused UNESCO of bias against Israel, particularly in resolutions concerning Jerusalem and other disputed territories. These resolutions often refer to Israel as an “occupying power” and criticize its actions in the West Bank and Gaza. The US sees these resolutions as unfairly targeting Israel and undermining its sovereignty, further straining its relationship with UNESCO.

“Woke” Ideologies

The accusation that UNESCO supports “woke” ideologies reflects a broader cultural and political debate within the US. The term “woke” has become politicized, often used to criticize progressive social and political movements focused on racial justice, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ rights. Critics argue that these movements promote identity politics and undermine traditional values. The US perceives UNESCO’s programs and initiatives as promoting these progressive values, which it views as divisive and contrary to its national interests.

The Consequences of Withdrawal: A Loss for All Parties

The US withdrawal from UNESCO has significant implications for both the organization and the US itself.

Financial Impact

The US was a major financial contributor to UNESCO, providing approximately 22% of its budget. Its withdrawal will likely lead to a substantial reduction in UNESCO’s funding, potentially impacting its ability to implement programs and initiatives. This financial loss could hinder UNESCO’s efforts to promote education, science, and cultural heritage worldwide.

Loss of Influence

By withdrawing from UNESCO, the US forfeits its seat at the table and loses the opportunity to influence the organization’s policies and priorities. This loss of influence could weaken the US’s ability to promote its interests and values within the international community. Without a seat at the table, the US may find it more difficult to shape global norms and standards in education, science, and culture.

Damage to US Reputation

The withdrawal could further damage the US’s reputation as a reliable partner in international cooperation. It reinforces the perception that the US is retreating from multilateralism and prioritizing its own interests over global collaboration. This perception could undermine the US’s ability to build alliances and foster cooperation on critical global issues.

Impact on UNESCO Programs

UNESCO supports a wide range of programs and initiatives around the world, including efforts to protect cultural heritage sites, promote education for all, and foster scientific cooperation. The US withdrawal could jeopardize these programs, particularly in developing countries. For example, UNESCO’s efforts to protect World Heritage Sites, such as the Great Barrier Reef and the Pyramids of Giza, rely on international cooperation and funding. The US withdrawal could weaken these efforts, leading to the loss of valuable cultural and natural heritage.

Weakening of International Norms

UNESCO plays a vital role in setting international norms and standards in areas such as education, science, and culture. The US withdrawal could weaken these norms and undermine the international legal framework. For instance, UNESCO’s work in promoting freedom of expression and press freedom is crucial in protecting journalists and promoting democratic values. The US withdrawal could undermine these efforts, leading to a weakening of global norms and standards.

The Future of the US-UNESCO Relationship: Can It Be Salvaged?

The future of the relationship between the US and UNESCO remains uncertain. The latest withdrawal underscores the deep divisions and mistrust that have plagued this relationship for decades. Whether the US will rejoin UNESCO again in the future will depend on a variety of factors, including the political climate in the US, the leadership of UNESCO, and the resolution of the underlying issues that have driven the withdrawals.

Political Climate in the US

The political climate in the US plays a significant role in shaping its relationship with UNESCO. The US has a history of withdrawing from international organizations when they are perceived to be at odds with its national interests. The current political climate, marked by a focus on nationalism and skepticism of international cooperation, makes it unlikely that the US will rejoin UNESCO in the near future. However, shifts in political leadership and public opinion could change this dynamic.

Leadership of UNESCO

The leadership of UNESCO also plays a crucial role in shaping its relationship with the US. Effective leadership can help address the concerns raised by the US and build trust between the two parties. For example, the election of a new Director-General who is committed to addressing the US’s concerns about bias and politicization could help rebuild the relationship. However, the current leadership has not been able to address these concerns effectively, making it unlikely that the US will rejoin in the near future.

Resolution of Underlying Issues

The underlying issues that have driven the withdrawals, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict and the promotion of “woke” ideologies, will need to be addressed for the US to rejoin UNESCO. The US has made it clear that it will not rejoin unless these issues are resolved to its satisfaction. However, these issues are complex and deeply rooted, making it unlikely that they will be resolved in the near future. As a result, the US-UNESCO relationship is likely to remain strained for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion: Echoes in the Void

The US’s on-again, off-again relationship with UNESCO speaks to a deeper struggle: the tension between national interests and global collaboration, between ideological purity and pragmatic engagement. With each withdrawal, the US not only diminishes UNESCO’s resources but also silences its own voice in the global conversation. The echoes of “divisive” ideologies may resonate loudly within the US, but in the void left by its absence, the world continues to turn, seeking common ground and building bridges, with or without American participation. The US’s withdrawal from UNESCO is a missed opportunity to engage in meaningful international cooperation and promote shared values. It is a reminder that the world is increasingly interconnected, and that isolationism is not a viable long-term strategy. The US must decide whether it will continue to retreat from the global stage or re-engage with the international community to address the pressing challenges of our time. The choice it makes will have profound implications for its own future and the future of the world.