O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us…
In the Washington Post, Charles Djou, who was a Biden administration official and briefly held an Hawaiian congressional seat, says the US should not, once again, remove itself from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), but should instead remain in and seek positive reforms. Well, who could be against that?
I believe in UNESCO’s founding vision: to unite humanity through education, culture and science. But to achieve that mission, UNESCO needs reform.
Yes, and…
At the heart of the problem is a structural flaw shared by many international bodies: a disconnect between financial responsibility and decision-making power. UNESCO operates on the principle of sovereign equality — every member nation gets one vote, no matter how much they contribute. This idea of equal voice sounds fair in theory, but in practice it encourages gridlock and waste. Countries that contribute little or nothing often vote for politically fashionable projects, knowing they won’t be the ones footing the bill.
The United States has historically provided over 20 percent of UNESCO’s budget but enjoys the same voting power as countries that contributed virtually nothing. Like other major donors, the U.S. is left with an unappealing choice: tolerate dysfunction or walk away. We can do better.
The best way forward would be to implement a “double majority” voting model. Under this approach, major decisions — budgets, resolutions and new initiatives — would require two thresholds: approval by a majority of member states and separate approval by a weighted majority based on financial contributions.
UNESCO’s budget is not large, and the US has been contributing about $75 million per year, which in Washington does not even count as walking around money. When a country applies to have a tangible or intangible work of cultural significance “listed”, as being a work worthy of protection, the nation making the request is then responsible for the protection of the work or cultural practice; UNESCO might help some poorer countries with technical assistance, but not much more. So what “free riding” might be happening is small potatoes, and for the sums involved I don’t much see the point of trying to get more out of very poor countries.
But there is a bigger issue here. Djou goes on:
UNESCO’s mission remains vital. In an age of rising authoritarianism, cultural destruction, disinformation, and global technological upheaval, we need institutions that promote shared values, protect historical memory and invest in education and science across borders. UNESCO can be part of that effort — if it evolves.
And the way to achieve these goals is … to give the United States more say? Because to whom would you turn in an age of rising authoritarianism, cultural destruction, disinformation, and global technological upheaval but the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, CEO? To whom would you turn “to unite humanity through education, culture, and science”?
The US is the richest country in world history, with a lot of “hard power”. But its “soft power” has dwindled to nothing – we now, and for the foreseeable future, have no powers of moral or cultural persuasion as a state, even should a very pleasant Democrat win the next presidential election. We cannot be trusted, we reverse policies according to whether Trump had a good nights sleep the night before, we gratuitously insult the governments and people of other nations who thought they were allies, and we bully through hard power – economic and the threat of our military.
Djou, who I get is trying to be positive and constructive here, relies on: well, we pay more, so we should have more say, without indicating in what ways other than money the US is deserving of a greater say than Jamaica or Peru or Botswana on the protection of cultural heritage.
We have, through our own electoral choices, made ourselves universally disliked, a country ruled by vulgar mobsters. Were I a UNESCO representative for another country, I’m not sure why I wouldn’t just tell the US to take its money and go home.
Companion reading today is from Paul Musgrave.
Cross posted at https://michaelrushton.substack.com/
Leave a Reply