David Singer: United States and Israel Quit over UNESCO’s Love Affair with “Palestine”

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine” as a member state in 2011 in breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution has come back to bite UNESCO with a vengeance – with America and Israel both quitting their membership of UNESCO on 31 December 2018.

America’s designated funding of 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget will now have to be met by other member states or UNESCO’s programs severely curtailed.

In October 2017, State Department spokesperson (now UN Ambassador-elect) Heather Nauert, clarified that America’s decision had not been taken lightly – citing continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO and the need for fundamental reform in the organization.

UNESCO anti-Israel decisions since “Palestine” was admitted to UNESCO membership have included:

• 2012– 8 resolutions condemning Israel, 1 condemning Syria and 0 other countries.
• 2013– 6 condemning Israel and 0 other countries
• January 2014– Cancelling an exhibition at UNESCO’s Paris headquarters on the Jewish presence in the land of Israel
• October 2016– Disregarding any Jewish ties to the Temple Mount – only referring to it by its Muslim names – then several weeks later – passing a softer version of the resolution that referred to the Western Wall by its Jewish name – though still ignoring Judaism’s ties to the site.
• July 2017– Designating Hebron and the two adjoined shrines at its heart — the Jewish Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Muslim Ibrahimi Mosque — as a “Palestinian World Heritage Site in Danger”.

UNESCO’s admission of “Palestine” to membership breached Article II (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution which only allows States to be admitted to UNESCO.  “Palestine” was not a state under the criteria laid down under international law by the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

107 states voted to admit “Palestine” whilst the remaining 86 voted “No”, “abstained” or “did not vote”.

UNESCO’s legally questionable decision was never referred by UNESCO to the International Court of Justice or an arbitral tribunal for confirmation under Article XIV (2)of UNESCO’s Constitution.
Given what has transpired – such failure was a monumental misjudgement.

President Trump’s National Security Adviser – John Bolton – recently exposed the fiction that there is a legally-constituted entity called “Palestine”:

'[Palestine] is not a state… It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood. It doesn’t control defined boundaries. It doesn’t fulfil the normal functions of government…calling it the so-called "State of Palestine" defines exactly what it has been — a position that the United States government has pursued uniformly since 1988 when the ‘Palestinian’ Authority declared itself to be the state of "Palestine". We don’t recognize it as the state of "Palestine". We have consistently across Democratic and Republican administrations opposed the admission of ‘Palestine’ to the United Nations as a state, because it’s not a state.'

Australia’s Head of Mission – Ms Gita Kamath – gave Australia’s reasons for its negative vote on admitting “Palestine” at the time of the 2011 UNESCO vote:

“Our decision to vote against reflects Australia’s strong concern that consideration of Palestinian membership in UNESCO is premature. The matter of Palestinian membership of the UN has recently been placed before the UN Security Council for its consideration. We should allow the United Nations Security Council process to run its course rather than seek first to address this question in different UN fora. Our decision also reflects our concerns with the possible implications of a successful vote on UNESCO funding.”

The Security Council course is still being run in 2019 with the finishing line nowhere in sight and UNESCO’s funding in tatters.

UNESCO’s credibility, integrity and self-created fantasy dream world has imploded.

UNESCO’s seven-year love affair with a non-existent “Palestine” has produced an international humanitarian crisis.

(Author’s note: The cartoon – commissioned exclusively for this article— is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators –  whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog)

David Singer: America and Israel Quit UNESCO Over “Palestine” Fiasco

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine” as a member state in 2011 in apparent breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution has come back to bite UNESCO with a vengeance – as America and Israel now give formal notice of their intention to quit UNESCO on 31 December 2018.

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert asserted America’s decision was not taken lightly and reflected US concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO.

American arrears owing for UNESCO dues now total US$550 million.

UNESCO anti-Israel decisions since “Palestine” was admitted to UNESCO membership have included:

1. January 2014 – the cancellation of an exhibition at its Paris headquarters on the Jewish presence in the land of Israel

2. October 2016 – disregarding any Jewish ties to the Temple Mount - only referring to it by its Muslim names – then several weeks later - passing a softer version of the resolution that referred to the Western Wall by its Jewish name - though still ignoring Judaism's ties to the site.

3. May 2017 – UNESCO’s executive committee passing a resolution critical of Israeli conduct in Jerusalem and Gaza.

4. July 2017 – designating Hebron and the two adjoined – shrines at its heart – the Jewish Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Muslim Ibrahimi Mosque  as a "Palestinian World Heritage Site in Danger".

UNESCO appears to have acted outside the terms of its own Constitution in admitting “Palestine” to membership.

That decision was open to possible legal challenge for two reasons:

1. Only states can be admitted to UNESCO under Article II (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution - and “Palestine” was not a state,

2. 129 votes from 193 members were required to admit “Palestine” – not the 107 votes received from those “present and voting”. 14 had voted against, 52 abstained and another 21 were absent from the vote.

UNESCO’s questionable and highly controversial decision should have been referred to the International Court of Justice under Article XIV (2) of UNESCO’s Constitution to determine whether:

1. “Palestine” was a “State” entitled to membership of UNESCO.

2. 129 votes or 107 votes were required for “Palestine’s” admission to UNESCO

UNESCO did not seek this judicial interpretation – which would have cost it US$100000 – even though I presented it with detailed reasons why it should.

Had the International Court ruled “Palestine’s” admission to UNESCO was unlawful – then the American funding tap would have been turned on again five years ago.

Instead UNESCO lobbied the Americans to cough up what amounted to 22 per cent of UNESCO’s annual budget. That lobbying was never going to succeed – since the chances of Congress backing away from America’s domestic law mandating the suspension of funds to any United Nations Agency that accepted the PLO as a full member – outside of negotiations with Israel – was doomed to failure

Australia’s Head of Mission – Ms Gita Kamath – gave Australia’s reasons for its negative vote at the time:

“Our decision to vote against reflects Australia’s strong concern that consideration of Palestinian membership in UNESCO is premature. The matter of Palestinian membership of the UN has recently been placed before the UN Security Council for its consideration. We should allow the United Nations Security Council process to run its course rather than seek first to address this question in different UN fora.

Our decision also reflects our concerns with the possible implications of a successful vote on UNESCO funding.”

UNESCO would not be in the parlous financial straits and ignominious position it finds itself today had its member States heeded Australia’s sage advice.

UNESCO’s foray into the Arab-Jewish conflict has been an unmitigated disaster.

David Singer: "Kerry Confronts Ghosts in State of Confusion"

Here, entitled "Palestine – Kerry Confronts Ghosts in State of Confusion", is the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

'The semantic circus that first created a people known as the “Palestinians” in 1964 – who now claim an entitlement to their own independent State in ” the occupied Palestinian Territories” – reached absurd heights with the following bizarre news item this week:

'The Israeli authorities have blocked 70 patients from Gaza from entering Israel to receive medical treatment because their transfer documents were marked “State of Palestine,” officials told AFP on Wednesday'

Until recently, official stationery has used the term “Palestinian territories.”

But the logo was changed in mid-December, a year after the Palestinians won recognition as a UN observer state, despite fierce Israeli opposition.”

This “War of the Letterheads” adds a new dimension to the conflict between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

The “State of Palestine” was admitted as a member State of UNESCO on 31 October 2011 by a vote of 107:14 and as a non-observer State at the United Nations (UN) on 29 November 2012 by a vote of 138:9.

Those States voting in favour ignored the legal requirements of article 1 of the Montevideo Convention 1933 which declares:

    “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:

    (a) a permanent population;

    (b) a defined territory;

    (c) government; and

    (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states”

Those States dissenting or abstaining took the view that any State of Palestine to be created for the first time ever in recorded history could only arise as a result of negotiations conducted under the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2003 Bush Roadmap and the 2007 Annapolis conference between the designated parties – Israel and the Palestinian Authority – (“the agreed negotiating framework”)

John V. Whitbeck – an international lawyer and advisor to the Palestinian team negotiating with Israel – had flagged the likelihood of this latest War of the Letterheads in an article written in the Cyprus Mail on 13 January 2013.

Whitbeck revealed that the Palestinian Authority had been absorbed and replaced by the “State of Palestine” in a decree issued by Mahmoud Abbas on 3 January 2013 and signed by him acting in his capacities as president of the State of Palestine and chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO.

Whitbeck’s confirmation of the demise of the “Palestinian Authority” with the newly declared “State of Palestine” should surely have signalled the end of further negotiations under the agreed negotiating framework – specifically designed to achieve the birth of that very State.

How could further negotiations on creating the State of Palestine be necessary once that State had been declared by the party demanding its creation?

To make sure the message was fully understood, Whitbeck stated unequivocally:

 'The Trojan horse called the “Palestinian Authority” in accordance with the Oslo interim agreements and the “Palestinian National Authority” by Palestinians, having served its purpose by introducing the institutions of the State of Palestine on the soil of Palestine, has now ceased to exist.'

Whitbeck left no room for doubt:

 “In his correspondence, Yasser Arafat used to list all three of his titles under his signature – president of the State of Palestine, chairman of the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and president of the Palestinian National Authority (in that order of precedence). It is both legally and politically noteworthy that, in signing this decree, Mahmoud Abbas has listed only the first two titles… There is no further need for a Palestinian leader to be three-headed or three-hatted.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry and the US State Department apparently missed – or deliberately ignored – the demise of the Palestinian Authority.

A meeting held by Kerry on 4 January 2014 is headlined on the State Department web site:

“Remarks with lead negotiator for the Palestinian Authority Saeb Erekat after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas”

Kerry obviously believes he has been involved in negotiations under the agreed negotiating framework with a Palestinian Authority President, a Palestinian Authority negotiator and a Palestinian Authority – that clearly no longer exist.

The War of the Letterheads should serve as a clear signal to Kerry that he is negotiating with ghosts – not a legally constituted and accountable entity under the agreed negotiating framework.

Kerry – in preparing his own eagerly awaited framework agreement – needs to take notice of this fundamental change wrought by Abbas – who no longer wears a hat or name tag designated “Palestinian Authority”.

If Abbas is to be believed, there are now three existing states in former Palestine – Israel, Jordan and Palestine – which need to define their final borders and resolve any other contentious issues  they might want to raise.

Erekat himself added another semantic whopper recently with this classic statement:

“I am the son of Jericho. I am 10,000 years old … I am the proud son of the Netufians and the Canaanites. I’ve been there for 5,500 years before Joshua Bin Nun came and burned my hometown Jericho. I’m not going to change my narrative”

Yet under the PLO charter:

 “Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

Shock horror – Erekat and all other descendants of the non-Arab Netufians and Canaanites aren’t “Palestinians”.

Kerry needs to sort out this confusing claptrap if he wants to make any headway in resolving a conflict that keeps being continually punctuated by Arab fiction on Arab fiction.'

[Note, incidentally: great video here regarding Christians loyal to Israel; it quite warms the cockles of one's heart!]

UNESCO's Cancelled Exhibition Gets The Go-Ahead

Great news, contained in a circular the Simon Wiesenthal Center has sent out to its supporters; let's hope UNESCO means what it says this time:

'The Simon Wiesenthal Center announced today that its joint exhibition with UNESCO, “Book, People, Land - The 3,500 Year Relationship of the Jewish People With the Holy Land”, will open on June 11, 2014, at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. The date was confirmed in an exchange of letters between Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO and Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center [both pictured above, in 2012]. 

“It was simply ludicrous for the 22-Arab states that belong to UNESCO to attempt to torpedo the exhibition, just days before its opening, on the grounds that it interferes with Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to jumpstart the Middle East peace process. Our exhibition, vetted and approved by both the UNESCO and Wiesenthal Center’s teams, had nothing to do with the peace process,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier. 

“It is ironic, that while the Arab League was trying to kill this exhibition and all the attention was focused on Paris, the UN headquarters in New York is hosting an exhibit entitled, ‘Palestine’, based entirely on the Arab narrative, which was not criticized as an interference with Secretary Kerry’s mission.”

The Center wishes to thank the US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, Foreign Minister of Canada John Baird, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the World Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai Birth International, the CRIF, and our many supporters from all over the world for weighing in so strongly. 

The exhibition was written by Hebrew University Professor Robert Wistrich, and co-sponsored by the governments of Canada, Israel and Montenegro. Members of the exhibition’s honorary committee include: Elie Wiesel; Lord Carey of Clifton, former Archbishop of Canterbury; Boualem Sansal, Algerian author; and Professor Irwin Cotler, former Canadian Justice Minister.'

 Read more here

David Singer On UNESCO, UNWRA, & The Refugee Issue

In my previous post I linked to Isi Leibler's must-read article on what he reasonably terms the "Nakba Hoax".

I turn now to another Australian voice on a related theme.

Here, courtesy as usual of the antipodean J-Wire service, is Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's latest article.  It's entitled "Palestine – UNWRA and UNESCO promote a state of confusion".

Writes David Singer:

'A crisis of diplomatic confusion seems to have arisen between two affiliate organizations of the United Nations following the announcement by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNWRA) of its intention to upgrade the dilapidated conditions in some of the refugee camps under its control - rather than taking progressive steps to close them down following recognition of the State of Palestine by UNESCO on 31 October 2011.

The upgrades will take place with the help of German Government funding in improving health clinics, sanitation and advanced education in coordination with local committees in five camps in the West Bank and two in Jordan.

Certainly any improvements to the daily lives of refugees and the abject conditions under which they have lived for the last six decades should be regarded as a welcome initiative.

However the recognition of the State of Palestine by UNESCO – and with it an end to Palestinian homelessness – should have also signalled the beginning of the dismantlement of the refugee camps and a structured program to achieve this humanitarian goal.

The vast resources available to UNWRA should surely now be better employed to assist the permanent resettlement of Palestinian refugees in their newly recognized state. Yet UNWRA has remained silent on implementing any such plans.

One of the camps slated for an upgrade is the Dheishe refugee camp – at present home to 13000 refugees. This camp is situated on the outskirts of Bethlehem in Area A of the West Bank – an area completely under the administrative and military control of the Palestinian Authority.

If there are any areas that can be readily identified as forming part of the newly-recognized state of Palestine – it is those areas that comprise Area A under the Oslo Accords - which currently cover 18% of the West Bank and include 55% of the total Arab population of the West Bank. Not one Jew lives in Area A.

On December 21, 1995, Israeli troops withdrew from Bethlehem and three days later the city came under the complete administration and military control of the Palestinian National Authority in conformance with the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1995.

One could indeed ask why Dheishe refugee camp has not been shut down at any time during the last 17 years of its existence – given that resposibility for the lives of its inhabitants was always under the complete authority and control of the Palestinian Authority.

The reasons profferred till now have been the lack of a Palestinian state to end Palestinian homelessness and a belief that one day the residents would be entitled to return to live in what is now Israel. This latter reason has never been – and will never be – an option that can ever be realised unless the State of Israel itself is dismantled.

The UNESCO decision to recognize the existence of an independent State of Palestine has brought with it an end to claims of Palestinian homelessness. .

Yet Habis al-Aisa - a Dheishe resident – still believes nothing has changed as he laments:

"We’re refugees, and the U.N. should be totally responsible for our needs and our situation, because our status is an international political issue."

Another resident, Othman Abu Omar, comments:

"We hope one day to be done with dependence. Everybody should depend on himself."

Sandi Hilal – the director of UNRWA’s “camp improvement program” in the West Bank – also seems to be under the same misapprehension as to the change in status of those under his charge when adding:

"Improving the daily life of refugees doesn’t jeopardize their right to return back home."

Can the Dheishe occupants still claim the status of “refugees” – now that they have their own State – a goal that has been pursued with international support and diplomacy for the last 19 years?

Does UNWRA’s stated position on the "right to return home" mean "to the UNESCO recognized State of Palestine" – or does it mean "to Israel"?  [Emphasis added]

It would appear that UNWRA is having problems comprehending the enormity of the UNESCO decision and the changes that have occurred to the status of those whom it has looked after for 64 years.

The United Nations has recognized as Palestinian refugees those – Palestinian Arabs  and their descendants – who registered with UNRWA after fleeing their homes from what is now Israel. They are covered by the U.N. resolutions and eligible to receive the agency’s services even if not resident in the camps, but not if they attain citizenship or asylum in another country.

The Palestinian refugees have enjoyed a special status not accorded to any other refugee groups world wide during the past 64 years. That status is – and has always been – privileged and discriminatory and needs to be ended without delay – especially now that a Palestinian state has been internationally recognized and accepted by the 194 member states of UNESCO.

UNWRA now needs to rise to the challenges and the opportunities the UNESCO decision has presented – and implement a program for the closing of the refugee camps.

UNWRA and UNESCO should be meeting to jointly plan such a humanitarian program to bring the long running and festering issue of the Palestinian refugees to an end.

Whilst UNESCO recognizes the existence of a a Palestinian State and UNWRA apparently does not, one can only conclude that the State of Palestine is rapidly acquiring a reputation for being known as "the State of Confusion".

The sooner the refugee camps start being dismantled – the better the prospects for a resolution of the long running Jewish-Arab conflict in former Palestine.'

"Is Palestine Now A State – Or Is It Not?": David Singer on why this question must be answered without delay

Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer has been continuing to focus on UNESCO and the issue of Palestinian statehood with an article, again via the antipodean J-Wire service, entitled "Palestine: Quartet and UNESCO  in Head-On Collision," in which, inter alia, he observes that "In going behind [the] Oslo [Accords] and the [Bush] Roadmap to unilaterally achieve statehood at UNESCO, Palestine has cut itself completely adrift from Oslo and the Roadmap."

Writes David Singer:

UNESCO’S  recognition that Palestine is a State has now been totally refuted by the Quartet – America, the Russian Federation, the European Union (EU) and  the United Nations (UN).

The Quartet – in its latest statement - has now endorsed the view of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (OTP) just a few days earlier – that Palestine is not a State. 

“The Quartet reaffirmed its commitment, as expressed in its 23 September 2011 statement, to examine possible mechanisms it can actively support going forward, individually and together, to advance peace efforts and strengthen the Palestinian Authority’s ability to meet the full range of civil and security needs of the Palestinian people both now and in a future state.”

The Quartet’s use of the words – “both now and in a future state” – was clear and unambiguous .
If the Quartet and the OTP are correct – then Palestine’s admission to UNESCO as a State is indeed unlawful – since only States can be members of UNESCO under Article II paragraph 2 of UNESCO’S Constitution.

Yet the Russian Federation and many other member states of the UN and the EU – 107 to be precise – voted to recognize Palestine’s claim to be a State – thereby qualifying it to be granted admission to UNESCO.

How then can their representatives in the Quartet be now saying Palestine is not a State?

The remaining 87 UNESCO member states – including America and Israel – did not vote for Palestine‘s admission. Yet none of these States has done anything in the last six months to protest the illegality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO – although several courses of action were open to them.

Read on for articl'UNESCO’S  recognition that Palestine is a State has now been totally refuted by the Quartet – America, the Russian Federation, the European Union (EU) and  the United Nations (UN)..'The Quartet – in its latest statement - has now endorsed the view of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (OTP) just a few days earlier – that Palestine is not a State."The Quartet reaffirmed its commitment, as expressed in its 23 September 2011 statement, to examine possible mechanisms it can actively support going forward, individually and together, to advance peace efforts and strengthen the Palestinian Authority’s ability to meet the full range of civil and security needs of the Palestinian people both now and in a future state.The Quartet’s use of the words – "both now and in a future state" – was clear and unambiguous .If the Quartet and the OTP are correct – then Palestine’s admission to UNESCO as a State is indeed unlawful – since only States can be members of UNESCO under Article II paragraph 2 of UNESCO’S ConstitutionYet the Russian Federation and many other member states of the UN and the EU – 107 to be precise – voted to recognize Palestine’s claim to be a State – thereby qualifying it to be granted admission to UNESCO.How then can their representatives in the Quartet be now saying Palestine is not a State?The remaining 87 UNESCO member states – including America and Israel – did not vote for Palestine‘s admission. Yet none of these States has done anything in the last six months to protest the illegality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO – although several courses of action were open to them.

Firstly – they could have attempted to have the decision reviewed by lobbying UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the constitutional propriety of its decision to recognize Palestine as a State – under Article XIV Paragraph 2 of UNESCO’s Constitution which states:

"Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation of this Constitution shall be referred for determination to the International Court of Justice or to an arbitral tribunal, as the General Conference may determine under its Rules of Procedure."

Secondly – they could have suspended their membership or the payment of their membership dues or refused to attend meetings when Palestine was represented by its accredited spokespersons.
America and Israel suspended their dues –  not to protest UNESCO’S recognition of Palestine as a State – but to protest that this recognition was achieved unilaterally outside the negotiations prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

So having by their conduct over the last six months done nothing to voice their opposition to UNESCO recognizing that Palestine is a State  -  how can their Quartet representatives now be claiming to do just that by claiming there is no existing State of Palestine?

The Quartet’s statement sounds an even more discordant tone when it asserts:

"The Quartet encouraged the parties, in this context, to cooperate to facilitate the social and economic development of Area C, which is of critical importance for the viability of a future Palestinian state as well as for its Palestinian inhabitants to be enabled to lead a normal life. The Quartet asked Quartet Representative Blair to continue his intensive work with the parties toward this end."

Again the words "a future Palestinian State" are carefully chosen – a clear negation of the UNESCO vote recognizing Palestine is a State.

But even stranger – "Area C" is a specific creation of the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap negotiating processes – instituted in 1993 and 2002 between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization through its then newly constituted negotiating entity – the Palestinian Authority.

"Area C" comprises 61% in area of the West Bank and is home to only 4% of the Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank. It also happens to be the location where pre-existing Jewish settlements were destroyed in the 1948 Arab-Israel War – and were subsequently re-established after the 1967 War.

"Area C" also contains most of the new Jewish settlements built since 1967 – where close settlement by Jews was to be encouraged under article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

Israel currently holds full security and administrative control in "Area C". Sovereignty has remained unallocated between Jews and Arabs since Great Britain handed back its Mandate to the United Nations in 1948.

In going behind Oslo and the Roadmap to unilaterally achieve statehood at UNESCO, Palestine has cut itself completely adrift from Oslo and the Roadmap.

It surely is wishful thinking for the Quartet to have any expectations that further negotiations on the future of "Area C" can be conducted within the framework of Oslo and the Roadmap – once the two-state solution contemplated by Oslo and the Road Map had been achieved at UNESCO.

If there are to be any negotiations over Area C – where Palestine does not have and never has had effective control – a new Roadmap – agreed to by Israel and the Palestinian Authority – will first be needed to replace both Oslo and the Bush Roadmap.

That no doubt is what the Quartet wants to avoid – and provides a good reason for the Quartet to continually claim that there is no state of Palestine existing at the present time.

Perhaps the Quartet is preparing us to get ready to listen to a new composition – the Obama Roadmap,

For that to happen however – the Quartet must encourage UNESCO to high tail it to the International Court – to clarify whether its decision to recognize Palestine as a State is lawful or not.

The current disharmony caused by UNESCO and the Quartet playing from different scores needs to be resolved without delay.

Is Palestine now a state – or it is not?

The UNESCO decision has not only created a growing global humanitarian crisis caused by the loss of 22% of its budget in suspended American dues.

That decision has now also become crucial in determining whether :

1. Oslo and the Bush Roadmap have any further relevance at all and
2. The Quartet disappears ignominiously off the international stage into permanent retirement as the most powerful diplomatic negotiating team ever assembled in history that failed to achieve anything after eight years of trying.

Until the International Court gives its advisory opinion – the Quartet is going to look decidedly foolish claiming  there is no such State yet in existence – when UNESCO says there is.

This head-on collision is certain to claim a lot of casualties.'

Palestine's Continuing Membership Of UNESCO In Jeopardy Following Legal Ruling

One of my favourite Middle East watchers, whose outlook will be not unfamiliar to regular readers of this blog, is Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.  He has written another important and thought-provoking article regarding UNESCO and Palestine.

This latest article concerns the implications of a decision made earlier this month by an arm of the International Criminal Court.

Coming as usual via the antipodean J-Wire service, the article is entitled "Palestine in UNESCO – Ending The State Of Confusion".

Writes David Singer:

'Palestine’s continuing membership of UNESCO has become far more tenuous and now faces increased scrutiny following a decision by the Office Of The Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that Palestine is not a State.

Only States can be admitted as members of UNESCO under Clause II Paragraph 2 of UNESCO’s Constitution.

The OTP decision now casts grave doubt on Palestine legally continuing to remain a member of UNESCO.

Alarm bells should be ringing at UNESCO calling for it to urgently approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to determine whether:

   1. Palestine is a State and if so
   2. Whether the number of votes required to admit it as a member under UNESCO’s Constitution is 129 – not the 107 actually obtained

The OTP decision was announced on 3 April – more than three years after Palestine had first sought to become a State party to the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Sixteen legal opinions were submitted to the OTP – arguing both for and against the claim that Palestine was a State.

I am pleased the OPT has now confirmed my opinion that Palestine is not a State.  However I am fully cognisant of the fact that the ICJ  needs to confirm the correctness of that opinion for it to have any binding effect. Still it is comforting to be on the same wavelength as the OTP and many others who expressed the same opinion in their submissions to the OTP.

Hopefully UNESCO might at least now take the issues I have raised concerning Palestine’s admission to UNESCO more seriously – and not sit pat and smugly refuse to address my concerns.

I have sought in vain for the last five months to have UNESCO produce any documents which its Executive Board may have considered before concluding that Palestine was a State – qualifying to be admitted to UNESCO.

My requests to produce copies of  such documents have been ignored. UNESCO has made it clear the matter is closed and  is not to be the subject of any further discussion with me.  [Emphasis added.]

In contrast to UNESCO’s lack of transparency – the sixteen legal opinions lodged with the OTP  can be viewed on the ICC website. The legal opinions or other documents UNESCO relied on (if any) are being withheld from public scrutiny.

Has UNESCO something to hide? I don’t really know at this stage – but its arrogant and high handed conduct needs to be exposed and justified.  [Emphasis added.]

Significantly some UNESCO documents have now come to light – from a source other than UNESCO – that make the decision of the 58 members of the Executive Board of UNESCO to recommend the admission of Palestine very intriguing

Palestine’s request for admission to UNESCO was first made in 1989 and has been reiterated at every General Conference since then.

At the time of Palestine’s initial application in 1989 – Israel had submitted an opinion arguing that Palestine was not a State. Given that the 1993 Oslo Accords were then only a twinkle in someone’s eye – Israel’s viewpoint could not be seriously challenged – notwithstanding Yassar Arafat‘s vacuous Palestinian Declaration of Independence made on 15 November 1988.

After 1993 and more particularly after the Bush Roadmap saw the light of day in 2002 – Palestine’s request for membership in UNESCO continued to be reiterated at every General Conference meeting without success.

The question that UNESCO now needs to answer is – what facts or circumstances changed in 2011 to enable the Executive Board of UNESCO to conclude that Palestine was a State and qualified to become a member of UNESCO?

There appears to be one document that may provide some assistance - the summary record of the sixth plenary meeting of the session of the Executive Board.

Perhaps a copy of this document will now fall off the back of a truck and end up in my hands.

Whether Palestine is a State must surely now be decided by the ICJ.

The legal uncertainty introduced by the OTP decision and the divergent opinions expressed in the submissions made to the OTP cannot possibly be ignored by UNESCO.

That kind of dismissive and contemptuous conduct might work against the expressed opinion of any individual like myself.

But it cannot and should not be tolerated when UNESCO is now faced with a formidable body of legal opinions that Palestine is not a State.  [Emphasis added.]

Whilst Palestine remains a member state of UNESCO – the following flow on effects are guaranteed

1. The loss of 22% of UNESCO’s funding to the end of 2013 – totalling $260 million in suspended American dues – that is unlikely to be fully replaced

2. The abandonment or curtailment of many UNESCO global humanitarian programs in areas such as literacy, water purification, gender equality, AIDS and HIV education and prevention – affecting the lives of scores of millions of people world wide

3. The end of negotiations for the two-state solution envisaged by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap – with manifold implications for resolving the long running conflict between Arabs and Jews.

UNESCO can of course continue to stick its head in the sand and ignore all calls for it to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the legality of its decision to admit Palestine.

87 of the 194 countries in UNESCO did not vote to admit Palestine into UNESCO. They have remained silent for the last five months and by their conduct have accepted the legal right of Palestine to sit alongside them as an equal and  member State. They can hardly claim that Palestine is not a State whilst they accept that Palestine remains a member of UNESCO.

The OTP decision should make all 194 member states think again.

The fact that Palestine might not legally be a State should surely see some of those 87 naysayer states proposing that UNESCO submits a brief to the ICJ seeking its advisory opinion on whether Palestine’s admission to UNESCO does comply with UNESCO’s Constitution – or does not.

Failure to do so can only result in foreseeable and possibly unforeseeable consequences – not only for the hopes and aspirations of Jews and Arabs in the Middle East – but for UNESCO’s global community.

The OTP decision serves as a clarion call for UNESCO to open its records and approach the ICJ without further delay.'

The UNESCO Scandal: Singer's Latest Variation On A Theme

Here's more, via the antipodean J-Wire service, about the UNESCO scandal by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer, originator of this petition.  This latest article is entitled 'UNESCO Must Choose – "Palestine" or the World'

Writes David Singer:

'The Obama administration formally announced its intention this week to ask Congress to waive a ban on American funding of 22% of UNESCO’s budget following UNESCO’s decision to admit “Palestine“ as its 195th member state on 31 October 2011.

The announcement did not come in a White House press release from President Obama.  Rather it was surreptitiously tucked away in an innocuous footnote to the budget that the White House presented to Congress – which contained the following statement:

“The Department of State intends to work with Congress to seek legislation that would provide authority to waive restrictions on paying the U.S. assessed contributions to UNESCO”

The State Department has squirreled away nearly $79 million into its 2013 budget in the hope that Congress will grant a legal waiver allowing such American funding to UNESCO to be restored.

That this is a forlorn hope was signalled by Rep.Ileana Ros-Lehtinen – the Chairperson of the US House of Representatives International Relations Committee – who stated:

“Any effort to walk back this funding cutoff will pave the way for the Palestinian leadership’s unilateral statehood scheme to drive on, and sends a disastrous message that the U.S. will fund UN bodies no matter what irresponsible decisions they make”

American funding of  UNESCO was cut off automatically under U.S. legislation dating back to the 1990s, which mandated the spending freeze for any UN agency granting full membership to Palestine before the conclusion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. This law recognized that any such unilateral decisions would work against – rather than assist – any such agreement ever being concluded.

This loss of American funding will result in a black hole of $260 million in UNESCO ‘s budget to 2013.
UNESCO’s Director General – Ms Irina Bokova – has already signalled she is looking at achieving an overall cut of 29% in UNESCO programs for 2012 -2013 – which will adversely impact on UNESCO’s proposed global programs for the benefit of scores of millions of people over the next two years.

Ms Bokova intends to reveal where she will be making her proposed cuts at the next meeting of UNESCO’s Executive Board commencing on 27 February.

Desperate to replace this lost American funding Ms Bokova has been accepting “donations” from some countries such as Turkey, Gabon and Timor Leste – which are conditional on being spent in those countries or neighbouring States – irrespective of where they rank in UNESCO’s scheme of priorities.

This will lead to even greater curtailment or abandonment of other programs – as UNESCO’s decision making power is subordinated to the demands of these individual states.

The US State Department needs to rethink its view that only an explicit waiver of the law can now free up American funding to avert the humanitarian crisis staring UNESCO in the face.

There is an alternative option that has been with UNESCO for almost three months – an alternative which UNESCO has refused to even discuss.

It involves UNESCO seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the following two legal issues relating to Palestine’s admission to UNESCO in breach of UNESCO’s own constitution:

What are the requirements that qualify an applicant to be admitted  as a member state of UNESCO under its Constitution and were these requirements satisfied in the case of “Palestine“?

 What were the number of votes required under the Constitution to admit “Palestine” as a member state of UNESCO?

The cost to UNESCO of having these issues determined by the International Court would be $100000 in my estimate.

UNESCO’s continuing refusal to even discuss the merits of the legal arguments advanced in questioning the legality of its decision to admit Palestine – indicates that UNESCO has no answer to the detailed submission given to it.

Even if UNESCO sought to rebut that submission – then there still is a need for those two competing viewpoints to be judicially resolved.

In failing to approach the Court – UNESCO is clearly signalling that it is more interested in protecting its decision on “Palestine” from judicial review – rather than finding a possible legal way out of such decision – thus enabling it to regain the lost American funding and so allow  its existing global programs to be maintained. .
Continuing to play a narrow political game at the expense of a vast all embracing global humanitarian game can only have serious repercussions for UNESCO’s continued existence and relevance in the future.
If UNESCO is so confident of its legal position then spending $100000 to have that opinion set in stone will be money well spent and will result in the Court clarifying and defining the meaning of the Constitution when future applications for membership are made.

Ironically it is not a waiver of the law that the State Department should be futilely spending its time and effort trying to achieve. Rather it should be whispering in UNESCO’s ear the virtues of subjecting its decision to the law to try and get a favorable ruling that would immediately release the withheld American funds.

That of course would mean the demise of Palestine’s membership of UNESCO. Would that be so bad – if in fact it was found to have been granted in breach of UNESCO’s Constitution?

UNESCO is apparently not yet ready to face up to such a prospect. Until it does – people around the world will continue to suffer.'

David Singer On His UNESCO Petition & His Facebook Group "Help Restore UNESCO's Funding"

In his latest article (entitled "UNESCO On The Nose") via the antipodean J-Wire service, Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer pinpoints five main reasons for opposition to his petition from some perhaps unexpected quarters, and urges a rethink on the part of those who have proved reluctant to sign.  He also draws attention to a group he has set up on Facebook, called "Help Restore UNESCO's Funding" and urges readers to join.

Writes David Singer:

'UNESCO seems set to preside over a looming global humanitarian crisis as it continues to struggle in its efforts to cope with the loss of  $260 million – 22% of its projected budget – until the end of 2013.
Trying to make up the shortfall – including lobbying America and Israel to resume the payment of their dues and establishing an Emergency Fund to solicit donations from its other 193 member states and the public at large – have clearly failed so far.

UNESCO‘s finds itself in this sorry situation because of its decision to admit “Palestine“ as its 195th Member State on 31 October last.

In an effort to recoup the shortfall – I have proposed to UNESCO that it approach the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on whether the requirements of UNESCO’s Constitution were satisfied in admitting “Palestine”.

If the Court rules that the provisions of the Constitution were complied with – then this avenue as a means of recouping the $260 million would be closed – but the provisions of the Constitution would have been judicially interpreted to prevent a repeat of the current controversy when dealing with other applications to join UNESCO in the future.

If however the Court found the decision to be unconstitutional – then the $260 million would start to flow into UNESCO’s coffers immediately and the emerging global crisis impacting on scores of millions of people world wide would be averted.

Faced with continuing UNESCO resistance to discuss my detailed submission to it on 1 December last – I started an online petition on 1 January seeking public support for this proposal – which has so far attracted more than 1000 signatures from people in 26 countries. Please also sign it if you agree with the views expressed in this article.

What has been surprising – and very disturbing – has been the opposition expressed to signing my petition – which I have been able to attribute to five main reasons gleaned from the responses received so far to my proposal:

• Some have expressed their utter contempt for UNESCO and its continued existence – suggesting it has become ineffectual and politicized and should be shut down.
  They delight in the financial difficulties being faced by UNESCO – which they see as a self-serving organization that exists to feed an over bloated bureaucracy of overpaid and well travelled employees – rather than spending its budget on helping the hundreds of millions of people world wide who are crying out for some hope to relieve their distressing lives.

• Some Americans are supportive of their country’s decision to stop the payment of  its financial dues – automatically suspended as a result of an American law dating back to the 1990’s which prescribed such action should any UN agency act as UNESCO did.

These people are more than happy to see this money – about $100million yearly – go towards helping America solve its own pressing domestic financial problems.
They are hostile to UNESCO‘s lobbying attempts to try and get America to change its law or to otherwise circumvent the legislation to get America‘s dues back via some back door manoeuvre.

• Some have shown a total lack of concern or compassion for the difficulties facing hundreds of millions of people world wide if UNESCO is forced to curtail its humanitarian assistance.

This attitude was succinctly expressed in the following comment:
“Palestine suffers from the actions of the world, the world can suffer from Palestine for once”

• Some have expressed no confidence in the International Court being able to arrive at a fair and unbiased opinion – a waste of time and money

• By far the largest number of those refusing to sign the petition are those who are opposed to UNESCO taking any steps that could possibly lead to Palestine’s admission to UNESCO being ruled unconstitutional.

People are entitled to their viewpoints – and to be criticised for holding those views. I have urged many expressing these views to think again and sign the petition – but to no avail.

UNESCO cannot allow its decision on Palestine – and its dire consequences – to simply end in UNESCO cutting its programs and its employees for 2102-2013 in accordance with a drastically revised budget – until it has explored every option to avoid this happening.

The consequences of such program cutting will clearly impact on the lives of millions of people world-wide.  UNESCO would be clearly irresponsible if it failed to take any possible action available to arrest this emerging humanitarian landslide.

Spending $100000 approaching the International Court in the hope of  avoiding  this parlous situation is an option that UNESCO should grab with both hands.

The International Court cannot possibly hope to satisfy all of the above objectors.

If  Palestine’s admission to UNESCO is found to be lawful –  those espousing the views in groups 3 and 5 above will be happy and the rest will not . The status quo now existing will be maintained.

If Palestine’s admission to UNESCO is found to be unlawful – only those in group 4 may be persuaded to rethink their view of the International Court.  None of the other 4 groups will be happy – but the status quo existing at 30 October 2011 will be restored – for better or for worse.

UNESCO should not be afraid to institute such legal action for fear of upsetting these objectors – since the number of people signing and still continuing to sign my petition clearly outnumber those opposed to signing it.

I have been encouraged by such response to set up a Facebook group called “Help Restore UNESCO’s Funding”.

I urge everyone – in favour of or opposed to UNESCO approaching the International Court – to join, have their say and to follow developments as they unfold at UNESCO and in the international arena..

UNESCO needs to be very careful that it does not create the impression that it can ignore its own constitution with impunity. Its failure to even discuss my detailed submission on the legality of its decision renders it open to such a charge and only serves to  reduce its status and credibility among those signing the petition.
Seeking to resolve the current impasse by resorting to the law is not a known or an accepted practice in a large number of the 195 member states that make up UNESCO – where the rule of law and respect for the law in such countries is unknown.

Approaching the International Court in the present circumstances will help these states understand this still remains the best system yet devised for finally resolving issues between people with different viewpoints.

The law is not perfect and its decisions are often controversial and open to criticism and different interpretations.

However it beats bullets, demonstrations and dying, tear gas and trauma – hands down.'

UNESCO: David Singer On The Poison & Its Antidote

Sydney lawyer and foundation member of the International Analysts Network David Singer, author of this petition, has a new article via the antipodean J-Wire service.  Its title is "Palestine Poison Pill Paralyses UNESCO" and, being an admirer of his articles, I take the liberty of reproducing it here.

Writes David Singer:


'Palestine’s admission as the 195th member state of UNESCO – in possible breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution – has become a very painful poison pill  for UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova to swallow.

This is becoming increasingly evident as she addressed a special information session of permanent delegations to UNESCO on 26 January to present her assessment of the crisis that has enveloped UNESCO since its controversial decision to admit Palestine on 31 October 2011.

Putting on a brave face – Ms Bokova  disclosed that the establishment of her much vaunted Emergency Multi-Donor Fund on 10 November 2011 had fallen far short of recouping the $72 million shortfall in unpaid American dues for 2011. Even worse – pledges made by some states still remained unpaid.

Ms Bokova initially claimed on 10 November that this shortfall – caused by American laws dating back to the 1990‘s and amounting to 22% of UNESCO’s budget – had stimulated an unprecedented outpouring of support for UNESCO from individuals, associations and private corporations from all corners of the globe.

Having announced  that the  Fund would be open to all donors including public institutions, foundations and individuals – Ms Bokova now revealed that the fund had received just $30000 from these sources in the two months since the fund was established..

Incredulously – Ms Bokova had the effrontery to tell the delegates:

“I would mention that this amount is much higher than that collected during previous campaigns …it is a sign of popular support”

Ms Bokova pointed out the following measures that had been taken to try and make up the 2011 shortfall :

1.    Cutting down the number of missions from an average of 319 per month to 70 in December – with a saving in mission costs of 65% in November/December
2.    Reducing the number of temporary consultants and temporary contracts from 482 people to 160 people
3.    Postponing or cancelling a number of activities

- all of which no doubt affected UNESCO’s delivery of help to millions of people world wide relying on UNESCO to bring some hope into their distressed lives.

The position for 2012 – 2013 appears to have worsened in the space of  three weeks from a projected deficit of $167 million to $188 million – as Ms Bokova announced that her budget of $653 million was now only funded to $465 million due to the suspension of contributions from America and Israel

Drastic measures to cope with this crisis will be presented by Ms Bokova at the next meeting of the UNESCO Executive Board on 27 February.

The 58 Board members will not be hearing any good news.

Ms Bokova made no bones in telling the representatives of the permanent delegations:

“In terms of the reduced funding available, I requested all Sectors/Bureaux/Offices to prepare Work Plans for 2012-2013 that reflect an overall reduction of 29% in the Approved Budget. I determined 29% as a realistic measure of good contingency planning in the face of the accumulated deficit.”

No UNESCO program will be spared the axe – but the cuts will not be 29% across the board as Ms Bokova hastened to add:

“Rest assured, the Global Priorities of Africa and Gender Equality are programmatic priorities,and targeted action will be identified in favour of youth,Least Developed Countries,Small Island Developing States and countries in post conflict and     post-disaster situations.”

How Ms Bokova hopes to achieve this delicate balancing act will make for fascinating reading.

She continued by issuing this stern warning:

“Early analysis of work plans for the five Major Programmes and the rest of the Organization as of 20 January 2012 shows the profound impact of the severe funding constraints across the entire Organization, which reaches into core    priorities and operations.”

Jobs in UNESCO and programmes world wide are set to go in this massive shake up – which will be devastating for those affected..

For many who view UNESCO as being an over-staffed and  bloated bureaucracy – this will be seen as a blessing in disguise. Others who see a severe contraction in UNESCO‘s current and future programs will be alarmed at the prospects of what lies ahead. Yet others will rejoice in seeing UNESCO wallowing in a problem of its own making that could have been avoided.

Ms Bokova revealed some pills that UNESCO employees and conference junkies have already swallowed – including:

1.    Suspending the printing and distribution of her own Ivory Notes ($793 per Note)
2.    Increasing the hours required for business class travel from 8 hours to 9 hours.
3.    Reducing regular program travel budgets by 20% across the board
4.    Reducing daily subsistence allowances to programme meetings and conference participants by 25%

In the meantime one possible solution to all of UNESCO’s financial woes – that would cost it $100000 to pursue – is apparently still not in contemplation.

That possible solution involves UNESCO seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to determine the legality of  UNESCO’s decision to admit Palestine as a member state.

The 107 countries that voted for Palestine’s admission should be urging such action be taken – since a reversal of that decision would end UNESCO’s current parlous position by immediately restoring the lost American funding  and allow UNESCO to resume all its global programs. Seeking this outcome should surely be the priority of each such member state and in its best national interest – since the populations and economies of many of these countries will become the first victims of UNESCO’s growing financial crisis

The 87 countries that did not affirmatively vote for Palestine’s admission – but urged a more cautious approach – should certainly support testing the legality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO at the ICJ.
Only states can become a member of either the UN or UNESCO.  The UN vetting Committee did not accept that Palestine qualified to be admitted as a state – but UNESCO’s Executive Board apparently did. My attempt to find out why has fallen on deaf ears at UNESCO headquarters.The ICJ would certainly not tolerate this wall of silence.

There is a further legal issue requiring the ICJ to interpret and reconcile inconsistencies between different clauses of the Constitution regulating the vote required to admit new member states.
UNESCO’s large Public Information Division and its well staffed and resourced Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs don’t even want to discuss these issues.

Will all their jobs still be there after the Executive Board meets on 27 February?

Whilst UNESCO refuses to take the prescribed ICJ antidote that could aid its complete recovery – this poisoned pill will continue to claim many more victims – including permanent UNESCO employees – as its effect is continued to be felt by scores of millions of people around the world.'

David Still Harping On The UNESCO Giant's Sins

David Singer, the Sydney lawyer and foundation member of the International Analysts Network, is by now no stranger to regular readers of this blog.

His petition (please spread the word!) is still open for signing here 

Meanwhile, he continues to concentrate on the consequences of UNESCO's unconstitutional admittance of Palestine, as in this article entitled 'UNESCO Unmoved To Try To End Humanitarian Crisis,' which comes as usual from the antipodean J-Wire service.

Writes David Singer:

Read on for articleThe Director of the Division of Public Information at UNESCO – Mr Neil Ford – has made it clear that UNESCO still refuses to approach the  Imternational Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion on the legality of the admission of Palestine as the 195th Member State of UNESCO…writes David Singer.

'The Director of the Division of Public Information at UNESCO – Mr Neil Ford – has made it clear that UNESCO still refuses to approach the  Imternational Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion on the legality of the admission of Palestine as the 195th Member State of UNESCO.

This approach was suggested by me to UNESCO in a detailed submission on 1 December last – following what I considered to be an inadequate response to my concerns first raised with UNESCO on 5 November – five days after Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

On 31 December – and only after considerable prodding – I was advised by Ms Suzanne Bilello – Senior Public Information and Liaison Officer with the UNESCO Office in New York – that UNESCO had no comment to make on my submission.

I then started a petition to in the hope of persuading UNESCO to review its decision.

I wrote to Ms Bilello on 2 January in the following terms:

“I can only take UNESCO’s refusal to comment further to mean that:

UNESCO cannot legally justify the decision to admit Palestine as a full member of UNESCO since a two thirds majority vote of 130 member states required by Article II (2) of the Constitution was not met – as I claimed in my email to you dated 1 December 2011

UNESCO is not prepared to supply me with a copy of the recommendation of the Executive Board to the General Conference to admit Palestine to membership of UNESCO and any reports that formed part of that recommendation or were considered by the Executive Board prior to making that recommendation

If I am mistaken in drawing the above conclusions – please advise me why within the next seven days.”

Ms Bilello did not respond.

Surprisingly however – Mr Ford sent me an email on 18 January – but it failed to comment on my detailed submission. Instead Mr Ford sought to justify the legal correctness of a statement issued by UNESCO that I had criticised in various articles and blog posts.

Mr Ford was quite peremptory in again letting me know that UNESCO would provide no further comment on the subject.

Undeterred. I asked him to confirm whether he had seen my detailed submission sent to Ms Bilello and asked him two further questions that required simple “Yes” or “No” answers.

True to his word he refused to comment. A three-word email was obviously too hard to draft and send for the UNESCO Director of Public Information.

In all of these ongoing discussions the very large Legal Department of UNESCO has remained silent – apparently hoping that its spin doctors in Public Relations will make the legal issues go away.
UNESCO’s conduct seems very hard to fathom.

UNESCO is sailing into uncharted waters as its decision on Palestine has cost – and will cost it – the loss of 22% of its budget in unpaid American dues totalling about $225 million dollars to 2013. Even worse – loss of funding to the tune of about $85 million per annum is set to continue annually after 2013.

Facing this funding shortfall, UNESCO has halted all new projects, and may be forced to lay off staff.
The Center For Humanitarian Rights and Humanitarian Law (CHRHL) has spelled out the serious consequences of losing that funding:

“UNESCO, which has a budget of $653 million for 2011-2012, works to attain equal education around the world, mobilize support for sustainable development, and encourage intercultural dialogue. As a key player in fulfilling the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG), UNESCO supports and promotes literacy programs across the developing world. The right to education is enshrined in Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. UNESCO’s Education for All initiative, which seeks to meet the second MDG of universal primary education by 2015, has faced large funding gaps since its inception. UNESCO’s own funding shortfall as a result of the Palestinian vote is likely to exacerbate budgetary constraints on this crucial program. Specific programs that may be affected include: literacy training for Afghan police, an Iraqi curriculum development program, and education infrastructure support in South Sudan.”

UNESCO’S response to this developing crisis has been to sail on its merry way – virtually oblivious to the dangers that lurk just beneath the surface that could cause this giant colossus to run aground.

Whilst busy raising the flag of “Palestine” at UNESCO headquarters in Paris – UNESCO has attempted to recoup this staggering shortfall by:

Establishing an Emergency Fund – which has met with little success.

According to CHCRL the Fund is unlikely to cover the initial shortfall of $65 million and UNESCO will be forced to reformulate its future budgetary plans as the US is expected to withold budgeting for the coming years caused by the automatic suspension of the payment of any funds to any UN agency that admitted Palestine to membership of that organization.

Attempting to get America to resume its payments to UNESCO by changing its domestic laws – a forlorn hope according to CHCRL because of a desire in the U.S. to cut government spending.
I believe there is a far more cogent reason this will not happen – especially in an election year.

That reason is US Congressional disapproval of the PLO attempting to unilaterally seek recognition of a Palestinian State outside the negotiations agreed to be conducted between Israel and the PLO under the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap.

Ironically the one lifeline that could possibly end this growing humanitarian crisis – my suggested approach to the International Court of Justice – continues to remain unconsidered by UNESCO .

If my submission is upheld – and UNESCO has yet to dispute its conclusions – Palestine’s admission to UNESCO will be declared null and void – but the budget short fall will be eliminated and a multitude of UNESCO’s global humanitarian programs will be saved from the funding axe.

If my submission is not upheld – then Palestine’s admission to UNESCO will be confirmed, the meaning of the UNESCO Constitution will be clarified and UNESCO can hold its head high in having attempted to take some positive action to reinstate the loss of 22% of its funding.

I estimate the approach to the ICJ to judicially determine whether Palestine’s admission to UNESCO was legal or not – would cost UNESCO $100000 .

Will UNESCO take the plunge – or just keep rearranging the deckchairs whilst the ship sinks?'

"Ripples" Into "Whirlpools"? UNESCO's Crisis Following Its Unconstitutional Admittance of Palestine

Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer's petition against UNESCO's unconstitutional act in admitting Palestine to membership now has over 750 signatures. He is hoping for many more ...

Meanwhile, in this article, entitled "UNESCO Commissioner Spells Out Global Fallout From Palestine Decision," originally published by the antipodean J-Wire service at the weekend ago, he provides an update regarding the debacle:

Writes David Singer:
'Global programs in literacy, gender equality and clean water initiatives will be impacted as a result of America suspending its dues to UNESCO totalling about $225 million dollars until 2013 – according to United States National Commissioner to UNESCO – Emilya Cachapero.

Hundreds of millions of people in third world countries stand to suffer as these programs are curtailed or abandoned because of this black hole opening up in UNESCO’s recurrent funding – resulting from the admission of Palestine to membership of UNESCO on 31 October.

Two American domestic laws passed in the early-mid-90s specify that if Palestine becomes a full member in any UN agency, the US would end funds to that agency.

This legislation was designed to ensure that no unilateral action was taken by the Palestinian Authority to declare statehood outside the negotiations prescribed by the Oslo Agreements and the Bush Roadmap.
The global fall out from this loss of American funding – 22% of UNESCO’s annual budget – has been spelled out In a highly revealing article “Ripples from Palestine Membership Into UNESCO” – written by Ms.Cachapero – the Theatre Communication Groups Director of Artistic Programs/International Theatre Institute – US.

Ms Cachapero indicated the fallout was going to be far wider than just UNESCO’s programs:

“However, the withdrawal of funds could also have huge repercussions throughout UN agencies and this is much bigger than just a UNESCO, UN or Palestine issue.”

She points out that:

“The UN meeting calendar is determining which other agencies are approached by Palestine to petition for full membership. The next agency meeting where Palestine is expected to request membership is the World Patents Organization and other meetings on the calendar include the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, and later the Atomic Energy Commission.”

Obviously if Palestine is admitted to membership of these organizations – then American funding will automatically cease.

Ms Cachapero disagrees with the politicization of UNESCO – brought home very forcefully by Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Maliki who heralded Palestine’s admission to membership of UNESCO in these terms:  

"Today’s victory at UNESCO is the beginning of a road that is difficult, but will lead to the freedom of our land and people from occupation. Palestine has the right to a place on the map.”

The price the rest of the world is now being asked to pay for this diplomatic assault outside the negotiations agreed on by the Palestinian Authority with Israel seems to have had no place in Mr Maliki’s thinking – nor those 107 states that voted for Palestine’s admission knowing full well that it could lead to the loss of America’s monetary commitment to UNESCO.
Like it or not – politics appears to have been an important factor in relation to Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

I first raised questions with UNESCO concerning the legality of Palestine’s admission some two months ago.
I sought access to the reports of UNESCO’s Executive Board recommending the admission of Palestine to UNESCO – which has been ignored. Six weeks ago I also prepared and submitted to UNESCO a submission on the majority vote I believed was required to admit Palestine. UNESCO continues to maintain a wall of silence – indicating it will not be commenting on my claims.

I have now instituted a petition seeking public support to demand UNESCO review the decision and if necessary seek an advisory opininion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
700 people from 19 countries have signed the petition in the 10 days it has been on line.

Is there any alternative to this course of action – which could help get American funding restored if the ICJ finds Palestine’s admission was unlawful?

Ms Cachapero offers one alternative suggestion:

“We encourage you to send messages to Members of Congress urging them to amend the laws and allow US funds to flow again to all impacted UN agencies”

She acknowledges that such action is unlikely to have any effect by revealing that:

“US Ambassador to UNESCO David Killion informed the US Commissioners that he is working with other State Department officials to encourage US legislators to amend the laws, which are not likely to be repealed.”

Given this is an election year in America – Mr Killion’s opinion is probably correct.

UNESCO has attempted to replace the lost American funding by establishing an Emergency Fund in November – urging its remaining 194 members to make up the shortfall.

The Emergency Fund has yielded very little in voluntary contributions to date.

Certainly the 87 member states that did not vote for Palestine’s admission, or abstained from voting or simply did not turn up for the vote would not be very sympathetic to such a plea stemming from a decision they did not support.

UNESCO is clearly in a bind.

If the ICJ found UNESCO acted unlawfully, then Palestine’s admission would be declared null and void but American funding would be restored. If the ICJ found UNESCO had acted legally, then the loss of American funding would be continued but Palestine’s admission to UNESCO would be confirmed.
Given the “out” an ICJ opinion could possibly give UNESCO – it would be acting irresponsibly if it did not approach the ICJ.

I believe that UNESCO could have avoided the dilemma in which it now finds itself – had the Executive Board properly dealt with Palestine’s application when it was first presented to the Executive Board.
The action of the Executive Board is to be contrasted with the Committee that dealt with Palestine’s application to become a member of the United Nations – where that application failed to convince such Committee to forward it to the Security Council for a vote.

It would be very interesting to learn how Palestine’s application could have been recommended by UNESCO’S Executive Board but rejected by the UN vetting Committee – since only States can be recommended for membership to both organizations.

Palestine does not satisfy the criteria for statehood under customary international law as recognized in the Montevideo Convention.

Was this a fatal impediment to Palestine’s application to join the UN – but thought to be of no consequence in regard to its application to join UNESCO?

The ICJ might well have something to say on this issue.

Irrespective of what occured at the Executive Board – the vote taken at the UNESCO General Conference has the smell of illegality about it – reinforced by UNESCO refusing to justify the constitutional provision which enabled Palestine to be admitted to membership on the affirmative vote of only 107 member states – rather than the 129 I maintain are required by the Constitution..

In the end some declaratory ruling by the ICJ is necessary to possibly rescue UNESCO from the hole into which it is sinking further every day as its programs are impacted by the sudden withdrawal of American funding.

Ms Cachapero’s description of the problems as “ripples” seems set to turn into ” whirlpools” – unless UNESCO seeks advice from the ICJ instead of hoping the problem will simply disappear if it maintains its present course of inaction and continuing silence.

Should politics take precedence over legality? That is the question UNESCO needs to face – and answer – without delay.

Hundreds of millions of people losing out on the abandonment or curtailment of projects designed to improve their daily lives seem to make the choice a very easy one.'

The Escalating Cost To UNESCO Of Its "Palestinian Blunder"

In his latest article via the antipodean J-Wire service ("Palestine Blunder Costs UNESCO $167 Million In 2012-2013"), Sydney lawyer and founder member of the International Analysts Network David Singer (originator of this petition, mentioned in the article below) continues to focus on the troubles confronting that UN agency.


Writes David Singer:

UNESCO’s deficit has skyrocketed from an estimated $120 million to $167 million for 2012-2013 as a result of its decision to admit Palestine as its 195th member in breach of UNESCO’s own Constitution.

In addition UNESCO has lost another $65 million in American dues for 2011 – automatically withheld by the United States as required by domestic legislation existing on its statute books since the 1990s.
UNESCO continues to refuse to review or to justify the legality of its decision to admit Palestine – which if reversed – could immediately restore this massive shortfall in its revenue and enable the resumption of essential programs suspended or curtailed as a result of this financial black hole.

Those 87 members of UNESCO who did not vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO  must be increasingly alarmed at this blow out in the deficit – and also at two highly embarrassing issues involving UNESCO and Palestine – one of which came to UNESCO’s notice in December and the other which is set to explode in February. .

The December issue has led to UNESCO withdrawing funding from a Palestinian children’s magazine – Zayzafouna – published by an NGO under the same name and coming under the patronage of the Palestinian National Commission of UNESCO – a national body set up by the Palestinian Authority.
The February edition of Zayzafouna contained an article by a 10-year-old girl in which Hitler was quoted by her as stating that he:

“killed [the Jews] so you would all know that they are a nation who wreak havoc on Earth”

In finding this statement may be interpreted as an apology for the holocaust and contrary to UNESCO’s constitutional mandate and values UNESCO declared :

“UNESCO supported the publication of three issues of the Zayzafouna Magazine six months after the February 2011 issue. The support was provided for these issues following agreement with the editors that they would focus on building greater appreciation amongst Palestinians for their heritage and culture. They were to open the way for positive dialogue aimed at overcoming the consequences of the Middle East conflict, and to fight against stereotypes that may be conducive to violence. It was UNESCO’s intention to foster a positive view of Palestinian heritage based on the values of tolerance and UNESCO’s mandate of building peace in the minds of men and women. This vision guides all of UNESCO’s activities, and we urge all partners to work in this direction.

UNESCO is shocked and dismayed by the content of the February issue, and has requested more detailed information and clarification from the editors of the magazine and the Palestinian Authority.

UNESCO strongly deplores and condemns the reproduction of such inflammatory statements in a magazine associated with UNESCO’s name and mission and will not provide any further support to the publication in question.

The Organization, which is deeply committed to the development and promotion of education about the Holocaust, disassociates itself from any statement that is counter to its founding principles and goal of building tolerance in the full respect for human rights and human dignity."

UNESCO’s approach to this outrage was principled and undoubtedly correct.

However any concern for complying with UNESCO’s “constitutional mandate” seems to have gone out the window when the charge is made that Palestine has not been constitutionally elected to UNESCO.

UNESCO – in announcing Palestine’s admission to membership incorrectly stated:

 “Admission to UNESCO for states that are not members of the United Nations requires a recommendation by the Organization’s Executive Board and a two thirds majority vote in favour by the General Conference of Member States present and voting (abstentions are not considered as votes)."

The words “present and voting” do not appear in Article II (2) – the article that expressly deals with applications for full membership.

However those words do appear in Article II (3) – the article which deals with applications for associate membership.

The majority vote required in each case is therefore very different – more stringent for full membership and less stringent for associate membership.

Whilst the majority vote – 107 – would have been sufficient to admit Palestine as an Associate Member – it was insufficient to admit Palestine to full membership for which the majority vote required was 129.

The 87 members who did not vote for Palestine’s admission should themselves be asking for an urgent review. – given the substantially increased loss in funding just announced and the use of UNESCO funds by Palestine for unauthorized and morally offensive purposes.

I am still seeking answers from UNESCO – but it appears they continue to be reluctant to review or justify the provisions of the Constitution that enabled Palestine to apparently slip through the cracks and join UNESCO’s ranks.

The issue set to erupt next month – as revealed by Giulio Meotti – involves Palestine applying for UNESCO World Heritage listing for the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron – a site holy to both Jews and Moslems.

Khaled Osaily, Hebron’s Mayor, said recently:

“It’s a mosque!, You don’t have to be an architect to see it!  Will you allow me to pray in a synagogue or a church?”.

Several days ago, the Palestinian Rehabilitation Committee raised the UNESCO flag next to the national ‘Palestinian’ flag in front of the Tomb of the Patriarchs.

Osaily, just returned from Paris where he took part in a UNESCO conference at the Institut du Monde  Arabe in support of adding Hebron’s holy sites to the World Heritage List, stated:

“We started a campaign three years ago to add Hevron to the UNESCO list”, . Now the request is ready and we will present it to UNESCO in February”.

I have started an on-line petition to help gauge the strength of public reaction to getting UNESCO to review what appears to be a clear breach of its own Constitution – which already has had  – and will have – serious and ongoing financial, operational  and political consequences.
490 people have already signed the petition in the last 4 days. [At present, the figure stands at nearly 600 - D.A.] I invite you and your social network to do likewise and circulate it to others to follow suit.

Those who don’t live by the law are destined to get their just desserts at the hands of the law.
UNESCO needs to come clean and review or justify its questionable decision – or continue to wither on the vine.