THE Palestine Authority, in furtherance of a contentious bid for statehood, won recently the greatest international endorsement so far with its strategic application for, and admission through a voting process, as a member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). That victory, secured in an unusual dramatic session at the France headquarters of the agency, however, unfortunately triggered some dislocation in the agency, chief of which is the withdrawal of financial support by a leading member, the United States of America. The U.S. decision will cost the agency a fifth of its budget.Unfortunate too, the admission could be at a cost to international cohesion, in the likely disruption to Middle East peace efforts. Israel (a U.S. ally), had already declared that 'a unilateral Palestinian manoeuvre will bring no change on ground.'Palestine's strategy is part of a broader quest for international recognition to close in on statehood through channels other than unending talks with Israel. But the timing may not constitute an advantage, in spite of the supposed psychological boost to Palestine's chances of gaining statehood next month at the UN Security Council. The U.S. has vowed to block Palestine's chances with its power of a veto.Perhaps the greatest danger the UN faces is the meltdown of its international agencies like the World Health Organisation (WHO) if Palestine makes new moves to attach to such UN agencies, which are independent of the larger body regarding admission of new members.During the ballot for the UNESCO seat, 107 countries supported Palestine, 14 opposed while 52 abstained out of 173 eligible countries. Current total membership stands at 195 but 81 votes were needed for approval. By whatever standard, this is not a mean achievement for the new member, with an overwhelming vote attraction across the continents. Almost all Arab, African, Latin American and Asian nations including China and India voted alongside France which had voiced serious doubts about the motion. Israel, the U.S., Canada, Australia and Germany voted against, with Japan and Britain abstaining.Even if it signs UNESCO's founding charter to formally become a member, Palestine would not be a novel case although it is rare, being a member of a UN agency without statehood status. Palestine would only be joining two tiny Pacific island nations of The Cooks Island and Niue with cover in UNESCO but not in the UN. (Liechtenstein on the contrary belongs to the UN but not the cultural agency).Expressed concerns about the future of UNESCO on the universality and financial stability may not have been misplaced. The U.S. input alone is about $80 million or about 22 per cent of total. A situation that could erode UNESCO as a universal platform for dialogue is also possible. The vote is capable of setting back the agency's effort in recent years to clear itself of criticisms of being anti-Israeli. For instance, the U.S. pulled out of UNESCO in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, to protest the passing of a resolution equating Zionism with racism. It returned two decades later under President George W. Bush.But there are positives too on the vote impact: A quick impact will be felt at the agency, which protects historic heritage sites just as it works to improve world literacy, access to schooling for girls and cultural understanding. In preparing an application for the traditional birthplace of Jesus for instance, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem could be listed as a world heritage site. That would be a concrete result of the newest membership.The U.S. vehemence about the membership status for Palestine is understandable, considering its role as an ally of Israel and a long-time mediator in the Middle East peace process. But the question in some quarters of the international community is equally germane: Is Washington facing a no-win situation'Washington hinged its action on a law passed in the 1990s that allows the U.S. to cut funding to any UN body that admits Palestine as a full member. (It will apply to payment due to UNESCO in November). The symbolic UNESCO vote will at least test U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO David Killion's argument that the vote is 'premature and undermines the international community's shared goals of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in M-East.'Although Israel sees a distraction of the peace process in the France voting, the perception has been that Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-line position has been drawing the Palestinians into unnecessary confrontation; and that there should be a seal on playing politics with the future of a people who have a right to self-determination like any other free, independent nation of the world.Symbolic as the UNESCO vote is for Palestine, that alone would not make Palestine a state. There are other battles to fight in border demarcation, security, refugees and the fate of Jerusalem, among other burning issues that have stalled peace in the Middle East.The Middle East problem is a danger to world politics, having pushed all parties to the wall and seems a hard nut to crack. It need not be if contending parties truly accommodate each other, and respect others' views as people with equal rights.What is not in doubt is that if the big supporters of the UN agency withdraw, it would render UNESCO (or any other body in similar straits) worse off. UNESCO, and the larger UN itself, must be saved for the good of all since no nation can be an island in the international community.Palestine should slow down its push through the UN agencies and not ruin its case. Besides, it may be advisable for the international community to try the creation of separate states for each of the frontline groups in the Middle East like the Palestine Authority and the Hamas. It is a possible avenue for peaceful co-existence in the troubled region.
Click here to read full news..
