Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 4:49 PM
Following the State Department's announcement that it had cut off U.S. funding from UNESCO in response to its overwhelming vote in favor of accepting the Palestinian bid for full membership, senators from both parties predicted the United States would cut funding or even withdraw from several other international organizations the Palestinians seek to join.
As The Cable reported last month, the Obama administration is required by existing U.S. law to cut off funding for any international organization that grants the Palestinians full membership. . Membership in UNESCO also grants the Palestinians membership in the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). The United States is not a member of UNIDO, but will be forced to stop contributing to WIPO.
But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The Palestinians could seek membership in more prominent international organizations, which could result in the United States defunding or even withdrawing from institutions such as the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The AP reported today that the Palestinian Authority was examining seeking membership in 16 more U.N. organizations.
While leading senators in both parties acknowledge that such an outcome would be negative for U.S. interests and influence, they have no intention of intervening to change the law. To the contrary, several top senators in both parties told The Cable they support the policy and will work to enforce it, despite the consequences.
"This could be catastrophic for the U.S.-U.N. relationship. This could be the tipping point," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations State and Foreign Ops Subcommittee, told The Cable in an interview on Tuesday.
"There's a lot of bipartisan support for cutting off funding to any political U.N. organization that would do this," he said. "What you are going to do is eventually lose congressional support for our participation in the United Nations. That's what's at risk here. That would be a great loss."
Graham said he believes it is in the U.S. interest to actively participate in these organizations. And yet, he plans to introduce a Senate resolution to formally withdraw U.S. membership in UNESCO -- a more serious action than simply cutting off funds. He intends to do the same for any other international organizations the Palestinians succeed in joining.
Graham also said that Congress is poised to cut off U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority (PA), which totaled $550 million in fiscal 2011, despite the fact that he still thinks financial support for the PA is a good idea.
"I don't think that's in our near-term or long-term interest, but that's what's going to happen, that's where this thing is headed," Graham said.
But isn't the United States just spiting itself by withdrawing from organizations in order to punish them for recognizing the Palestinians?
"Not really," Graham replied. "The world has to make a decision.... If the U.N. is going to be a body that buys into Palestinian statehood ... then they suffer. It's a decision they make."
Graham is seen as the most important GOP lawmaker in the fight to maintain foreign aid and U.S. involvement in international organizations, because of his subcommittee position and his genuine support for such issues. But when it comes to the issue of Palestinian recognition, the politics just don't allow any room for compromise, he said.
"I'm the closest thing to a friend [U.N. supporters] have [in the GOP]," he said. "But if the Palestinians continue to go to more organizations, such as the World Health Organization, well -- it's just going to be politically impossible for a guy like me to support a body who's playing a destructive game with the peace process."
Most of Graham's GOP colleagues are not as conflicted as he is with the idea of U.S. withdrawal from U.N. organizations.
"They've made a decision and they will pay the consequences for their decision," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told The Cable, referring to UNESCO. "And that is that U.S. tax dollars are not going to be spent, if I have anything to do with it, on organizations that take the measures they've taken."
Will senior Senate Democrats intervene on behalf of the U.S. role in international organizations? Not likely. Democratic senators told The Cable they either support cutting funds to U.N. organizations that grant membership to the Palestinians, or at least don't plan to do anything about it.
"We've put a very clear marker down in terms of what would be the result if there was an effort to prematurely declare a Palestinian state and [the administration] is implementing what they said they would do," said Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI). "It was the right thing to do and they should be implementing it."
Levin said that he hoped U.S. retaliatory action would slow down the Palestinian drive for recognition, and maintained that the United States would increase its influence by carrying through on its threats. The vote in UNESCO's General Conference was 107 to 14 in favor of Palestinian membership, with 52 abstentions.
Senate Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) told The Cable today he was fine with the cutting off of funds to UNESCO.
"That's what the law requires. It's been there for 20 years and whether I support it or not, that's the law," he said.
The senators don't blame the Obama administration for what is happening at the United Nations, because the administration has consistently called for the Palestinians to stop their statehood bid there. But Hill staffers in both parties have complained that the administration doesn't seem to have a plan to get out of the crisis or find a way around the law.
One Senate Republican staffer close to the issue told The Cable, "The administration is behaving just like a deer frozen in the headlights on this."
EXPLORE:ARAB WORLD, DIPLOMACY, FOREIGN AID, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, STATE DEPARTMENT, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, UNITED NATIONS
The US has given up on diplomacy and now just punishes other countries and international organizations that don't do what we like. Sad state of affairs.
Peter Van Buren
wemeantwell.com
Wow, members of America's congress saying that cutting funding to UN organizations would hurt American interests and still support it? American leaders are supposed to look out for American interests not the interests of another foreign country. After this calling America a superpower is a joke.
Graham: "The world has to make a decision.... If the U.N. is going to be a body that buys into Palestinian statehood ... then they suffer. It's a decision they make."
Ahem. Dare I point out that the long-standing policy of the USA is that it has already bought into the idea of Palestininian statehood.
Think about what Graham has just said.
It is one thing to talk about punishing the UN for daring to suggest a route to Palestinian statehood that Does Not Involve American Ownership Of The Process.
That is at least marginally arguable, though I wouldn't fancy trying to argue it.
But what isn't what Graham said i.e. he said that the very c.o.n.c.e.p.t. of "Palestinian statehood" is anathema to USA policy. So much so that any organization that "buys into" it must be punished.
That is an argument that simply isn't sustainable, precisely because the USA professes to be one of those organizations.
Heck, maybe that explains why the GOP tried so hard to drive the US government into default not so very long ago......
Not meaning to be rude, but.....
Does the US Congress understand the meaning of the word "deadbeat"?
Because I would suggest that a country that refuses to pay its dues even while it insists on remaining a member in good standing is the dictionary definition of a deadbeat.
So it's really going to come down to this, is it?
The USA really is going to trash its own reputation - repeatedly - for the singular benefit of Benyamin Netanyahu?
Man, you used to be a country worth looking up to.
You don't have the slightest inkling of how pathetic your behaviour looks, do you?
"Troll, troll, troll, flamebait..."
In what way, Comet?
Because I pointed out that anyone who refuses to pay its dues is a deadbeat?
That is a simple statement of fact.
Or is it because I suggest that the USA is going to repeatedly trash its reputation every time it refuses to pay its dues?
Sorry, Comet, but that is not a particularly shocking observation to make.
Or is it because I suggest that the USA is trashing its own reputation for the singular benefit of Benyamin Netanyahu?
Well, gosh, nobody else benefits from this US dummy-spit
So I can only assume you are referring to this line:
"You don't have the slightest inkling of how pathetic your behaviour looks, do you?"
Hands up anyone who *doesn't* think that this makes the USA look pathetic?
Anyone?
Anyone at all?
Pardon my ignorance, Mr Bacon but what or where is "FDL"?
Ok, so we have the definition:
"a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers."
And then we have CometLinear two comments:
"Democracy is four wolves and one sheep, deciding what's for dinner."
"Not meaning to be rude but Troll, troll, troll, flamebait..."
Irony anyone?
I welcome this for exposing the US as a gun barrel economy. A bully that uses newspeak to claim democracy only when it is convenient.
of the de facto defunding of the protection and maintenance of the holiest Christian shrines like the Nativity Church in Bethlehem ?
Its not like the Palestinians care about its protection
"of the de facto defunding of the protection and maintenance of the holiest Christian shrines like the Nativity Church in Bethlehem ?"
You mean the one Fatah defiled in 2002 during the oft ignored civil war between Fatah and Hamas?
Have you noticed the PA isn't trying to get itself entwined with UN organizations which people actually depend upon? Involving itself with UNESCO is strictly a propaganda ploy. Its an organization of mostly symbolic value and something the PA really has no concern with. Its typical of the diplomatic dance the Palestinians run and the usual Anti-Israel haters lap up like it has any real significance.
WHO, UNDMT and UNICEF are organizations within the United Nations where US funding is literally a matter of life and death for thousands of people. These organizations require a lot of money and manpower. The PA won't dare get involved with those because it requires commitments of resources to other nations irregardless of political situations. The PA won't ever act unless there is a self-serving ulterior motive.
This doesn't affect the diplomatic standing of the US in the way you guys seem to think (or more wishful thinking really). Like anyone is going to turn down US disaster relief, military aid or lucrative trade to go to bat for the Palestinians? Not on your life!
Have any of these senators even come up with a good explanation as to why the Palestinians shouldn't be seeking statehood at the UN? If Israel is stonewalling peace and making provocative moves like constructing in East Jerusalem, then it is in the wrong. If Israel is in the wrong, then the US needs to condemn Israel rather than backing it up unconditionally or else we forfeit our moral standing in the eyes of the world.
Why statehood through the UN is silly
1. Without the good faith involvement of Israel and/or Jordan, a Palestinian state will be a landlocked, isolated, wasteland with no economic means
2. Somehow people have forgotten than the Palestinians already have a de facto state in Gaza which is unrecognized which already is an isolated hostile wasteland.
3. Without Israeli involvement in the process, those settlements become part of Israel proper and the PA loses all chances of reclaiming the territory for themselves.
4. Without Hamas signing on, you essentially have a 3 state solution with two states warring on each other with Israel in the middle.
Outlook 2010 can help users better manage time and information, connecting across boundaries, to maintain a safe and controlled state. The user's recipient AutoComplete listis now available for Microsoft Outlook 2010 is running and connected to the sameExchange account on any computer. Use Outlook 2010 download for keywords, dates orother flexible criteria search, find e-mail, calendar items or tasks, saving valuable time.Microsoft Outlook 2010 download the full integration of real-time search interface, so you do not have to leave Outlook, you can find the information.
My country, Holland, and Israel also voted against UNESCO membership for Palestine, but we are not withdrawing funding from it or any other UN organisations.
I really do not understand why the Palestine issue is such a major foreign policy issue for the US. It is just a small slice of land in a distant corner of the world after all.
1. The US is the home of the largest Jewish population outside of Israel with more of them than the rest of the world combined.
2. Israel was founded with US assistance and is the closest ally to the US in the region.
3. The Palestinians relationship with the US up until 15 years ago was relatively hostile. The US has some bad history with the PLO and there is little trust in their successors.
4. US concerns over the Arab world is extremely hostile since 2001.
5. There is little trust in the US as to how Europeans respond to the region. European countries tend to vacillate between anti-arab and anti-Israeli sentiment depending on the political winds.
(15)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE