Written by daniel horgan   

It has a goal to raise 2.5 billion dollars for worldwide educational systems in the next three years, highlighting important needs from basic literacy issues, to pointing out the shortfall in secondary education globally, as well highlighting the stark inequality in the education of our female pupils worldwide. It is involved in the economic commitment for all countries to reach the Millennium Development Goals set by the 189 UN nations in the year 2000 which represented a promise to free all nations from extreme poverty. It is committed to preserving global cultures, education in science, and improving communication and cooperation on far reaching efforts such as peace building in areas of conflict, to improving diplomatic relations on a global level. It is the United Nations Education, Science, and Cultural Organization aka UNESCO…. In addition to its commitments stated above, one of its most notable achievements is the labeling and preservation of 936 important global cultural sites located in 153 countries, ranging from the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to the Great Wall of China. As a UN institution it is not perfect, but its mission is indeed ambitious and noble. Which is specifically, ‘to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, committed to sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information.’ This is UNESCO.

So why is the United States of America about to cut its taxes due to UNESCO (that amount to 22 percent of UNESCO’s annual budget)? Well, it is not because the economy is slow, and it not because US political representatives don’t care about the things UNESCO does, because they do! The reason for the US defunding of UNESCO goes directly to the root of corruption that pervades the financing of US political campaigns, and more specifically what power this gives to special interests over US and global interests.
So to explain the situation, recently UNESCO members (representing 194 countries) voted into membership the PLO (the Palestinian Government of the West Bank). As per law in 1990, passed with the influence of the Jewish Lobby, the law prohibits the appropriation of funds "for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as a member state." °°
So in essence what the Unites States Congress has said (with this and a law passed in 1994) is that any vote that a UN agency takes, in a democratic, free and fair manner, and which of course is always essentially a worldwide vote, that results in an outcome that admits a member that the US (or should we say Israel) alone doesn’t feel should be admitted then all funding and participation in that UN agency, by law, has to stop. This is not only completely undemocratic globally but domestically, and as such it disregards as a first concern US interest, and more specifically American National Security as well, as the Jewish Lobby was very sure to demand a ‘leave out’ on the ‘National Security’ waiver that is normally included in such laws.(1) That means there would be no such legal basis for even a debate in Congress on the possible concerns to American National Security generally or specifically to that of any one soldier or civilian as a result of these laws.
In addition it is quite a logical argument that these unilateral laws tied to the Jewish Lobby, that put Israeli National security over US national security, also decrease US national and global security. This can be said because as a result of these laws the US has once again been pushed into a virtual corner of global diplomatic isolation with only Israel as its true partner (and historically this has also been the case). As a result U.S. diplomatic global relations, especially with that of Muslim countries have the potential to be severely strained. This hurts directly America’s self-image in these countries and also adds directly to recruitment propaganda supply of Muslim Jihadist groups. This supply of which can be directly marketed to Muslim youth of these countries as means to join violent causes to fight against the US in places like Iraq, Afghanistan. In fact the Palestinian issue was an extremely useful recruiting tool to that of Osama Bin Laden largely because of the broad international agreement of Palestinian injustices suffered, rather than any fanatical ways of thinking, which of course are also present in these groups.
And yes negotiations should continue based on US reasons and requests as a means to achieve peace between Palestine and Israel, but it should be recognized that, these negotiations, with the US as mediator, have produced very little since their inception over 20 years ago. Negotiations should also not be seen as a requirement (or replacement) for the constitutional rights that the PLO or any international entity has under the system of global governance that we call the UN.
So we might wonder how long it is ok to say that here in the US, or anywhere on the globe, should native interest be allowed to be surpassed by foreign ones? How long should Israeli interest be able to supersede global interest and the rights of international entities within the UN system of which it is a part? And how long should these said US laws be allowed to stay on the books? Forever?
Daniel Horgan is a graduate of The European Center for Peace Studies and holds a Master’s Degree in Conflict Transformation. He has experience working and living in Guatemala, Uganda, Colombia, and Sri Lanka, and three years’ experience working in international protection and documentation of local human rights situations. He also holds a degree in Finance from the University of Massachusetts, and a California Teaching Credential, where he taught International Law and Human Rights at the high school level in public institutions. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it