4 ms·

"In 2011, the United States stopped funding Unesco because of what was then a forgotten, 15-year-old amendment mandating a complete cutoff of American financing

"In 2011, the United States stopped funding Unesco because of what was then a forgotten, 15-year-old amendment mandating a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts Palestine as a full member. Various efforts by President Barack Obama to overturn the legal restriction narrowly failed in Congress, and the United States lost its vote at the organization after two years of nonpayment, in 2013." https://web.archive.org/web/20220503183152/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/us/politics/trump-unesco-withdrawal.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220503183152/https://www.nytim...

tavavex 1y ago
> 15-year-old amendment mandating a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts Palestine as a full member As a non-American, doesn't this seem a little ridiculous to some people in the US? This screams of a kind of melodramatic, overdone theatrics that the US doesn't seem to do to anyone else. I get that the US has a lot of Israeli money/investments/customers and extremely religious people, but even then, why is it going this far to enshrine their relations to specific states in their laws? It ends up coming off as the US bowing on their knees to relatively minor nations on the other side of the world.
- paulddraper 1y ago
  I think it has more to do with terrorism and anti-Western sentiment than with religion. I expect the same treatment for Iran and North Korea.
- unclad5968 1y ago
  Not really. It's just the way it works here. If it's enshrined in law, it makes it harder for one person or small group to make a unilateral decision, similar to how things are happening here now.
- naniwaduni 1y ago
  Not really? The US does its diplomacy substantially by shuffling money around. Writing a conditional into law is how a legislative body expresses a formal commitment. That's business as usual. The continued existence of these particular laws in 2011 was, in any case, more a convenient excuse to do something they didn't not want to do anyway, than something that couldn't be changed if political will went the other way. It's just a bit stronger of a commitment than the sitting president's whim, which is also a thing that happens. Perhaps the disconnect is that the US actively engages in foreign policy at all?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > melodramatic, overdone theatrics that the US doesn't seem to do to anyone else Iran and North Korea. China with Taiwan. This is deeply precedented geopolitical drama. > It ends up coming off as the US bowing on their knees to relatively minor nations If Israel and Palestine are your issue, of course. (Everything will tend to be. This is just how pet causes and the availability heuristic work.) If not, it doesn’t.
  - tavavex 1y ago
    Sorry, I don't think I articulated the main point of what makes the 'theatrics' seem like such to me. It's not just about putting things about international relations into law - most countries do that in regards to war, economics, immigration, etc. It's that this whole 'punishment' is contingent on something so seemingly minor as UN membership (a.k.a. state recognition?). People hate Iran and North Korea, but I don't think many are arguing for them to be expelled from the UN outright. No sensible person does business with the Taliban's Afghanistan, but it's not like people are saying that Afghanistan is no longer a country. I don't even think this stance ("we will not back an entity that recognizes Palestine in this way") extends to any other countries with limited recognition, but correct me if I'm wrong. > If Israel and Palestine are your issue, of course. (Everything will tend to be. This is just how pet causes and the availability heuristic work.) Despite the very-not-subtle-dig at me, this war isn't the most important war for me right now, and it's not one I'm too informed on, given just how much background and historical baggage there is to the Israel/Palestine relationship.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > that this whole 'punishment' is contingent on something so seemingly minor as UN membership (a.k.a. state recognition?) If the battle lines are on recognition, that's where the fight will be. Once a country is broadly recognised, it's a moot point. (We don't recognise the governments in Tehran, Havana and Caracas, for example.) > People hate Iran and North Korea, but I don't think many are arguing for them to be expelled from the UN outright The best analogy is Beijing vis-à-vis Taiwan. Not only does Beijing not recognise Taipei, it also punishes countries and multi-lateral organisations who do. In this was recognition is analogised to secondary sanctions, and it's something that's been done since the dawn of civilisation.
- barkingcat 1y ago
  What are you talking about, global politics is only melodramatic overdone theatrics everyone does it. I'm pretty sure your home country, whatever it is, also does it. it's the equivalent of banging fists on tables to try to get people to toe the line, and the US does it a ton. Russia does it. China does it. even small countries does it too.
cma 1y ago
There is also a US law banning military aid to Israel since they have nukes outside of the NPT. Pakistan got an exception after a deal with their cooperation in the war on Terror.

tavavex 1y ago

> 15-year-old amendment mandating a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts Palestine as a full member As a non-American, doesn't this seem a little ridiculous to some people in the US? This screams of a kind of melodramatic, overdone theatrics that the US doesn't seem to do to anyone else. I get that the US has a lot of Israeli money/investments/customers and extremely religious people, but even then, why is it going this far to enshrine their relations to specific states in their laws? It ends up coming off as the US bowing on their knees to relatively minor nations on the other side of the world.

paulddraper 1y ago
I think it has more to do with terrorism and anti-Western sentiment than with religion. I expect the same treatment for Iran and North Korea.
unclad5968 1y ago
Not really. It's just the way it works here. If it's enshrined in law, it makes it harder for one person or small group to make a unilateral decision, similar to how things are happening here now.
naniwaduni 1y ago
Not really? The US does its diplomacy substantially by shuffling money around. Writing a conditional into law is how a legislative body expresses a formal commitment. That's business as usual. The continued existence of these particular laws in 2011 was, in any case, more a convenient excuse to do something they didn't not want to do anyway, than something that couldn't be changed if political will went the other way. It's just a bit stronger of a commitment than the sitting president's whim, which is also a thing that happens. Perhaps the disconnect is that the US actively engages in foreign policy at all?
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> melodramatic, overdone theatrics that the US doesn't seem to do to anyone else Iran and North Korea. China with Taiwan. This is deeply precedented geopolitical drama. > It ends up coming off as the US bowing on their knees to relatively minor nations If Israel and Palestine are your issue, of course. (Everything will tend to be. This is just how pet causes and the availability heuristic work.) If not, it doesn’t.
- tavavex 1y ago
  Sorry, I don't think I articulated the main point of what makes the 'theatrics' seem like such to me. It's not just about putting things about international relations into law - most countries do that in regards to war, economics, immigration, etc. It's that this whole 'punishment' is contingent on something so seemingly minor as UN membership (a.k.a. state recognition?). People hate Iran and North Korea, but I don't think many are arguing for them to be expelled from the UN outright. No sensible person does business with the Taliban's Afghanistan, but it's not like people are saying that Afghanistan is no longer a country. I don't even think this stance ("we will not back an entity that recognizes Palestine in this way") extends to any other countries with limited recognition, but correct me if I'm wrong. > If Israel and Palestine are your issue, of course. (Everything will tend to be. This is just how pet causes and the availability heuristic work.) Despite the very-not-subtle-dig at me, this war isn't the most important war for me right now, and it's not one I'm too informed on, given just how much background and historical baggage there is to the Israel/Palestine relationship.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > that this whole 'punishment' is contingent on something so seemingly minor as UN membership (a.k.a. state recognition?) If the battle lines are on recognition, that's where the fight will be. Once a country is broadly recognised, it's a moot point. (We don't recognise the governments in Tehran, Havana and Caracas, for example.) > People hate Iran and North Korea, but I don't think many are arguing for them to be expelled from the UN outright The best analogy is Beijing vis-à-vis Taiwan. Not only does Beijing not recognise Taipei, it also punishes countries and multi-lateral organisations who do. In this was recognition is analogised to secondary sanctions, and it's something that's been done since the dawn of civilisation.
barkingcat 1y ago
What are you talking about, global politics is only melodramatic overdone theatrics everyone does it. I'm pretty sure your home country, whatever it is, also does it. it's the equivalent of banging fists on tables to try to get people to toe the line, and the US does it a ton. Russia does it. China does it. even small countries does it too.

cma 1y ago

There is also a US law banning military aid to Israel since they have nukes outside of the NPT. Pakistan got an exception after a deal with their cooperation in the war on Terror.