Palestinians Gain Full Membership of UNESCO

Written by Wazir Uddin

It is presumed in almost all international forums that the US will act as a mouthpiece for Israeli sentiments, even if by doing so it directly contradicts America's own national interests and legitimacy. This was extensively argued by leading American academics Mearsheimer and Walt in their book entitled "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" in 2007.

This phenomenon was again evident in the response to the Palestinians being successfully voted in by states to become the 195th full member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization - UNESCO. "The vote was carried by 107 votes in favour of admission and 14 votes against, with 52 abstentions". Interestingly, the previous member to be voted in to UNESCO was the newly recognised South Sudan, though the dynamics were of course different both because of the natural resources that its lands contain and the international alienation of the regime in Sudan.

The US response of withholding US financial dues to UNESCO as a punitive measure, causing a subsequent appeal and response from the organisation's Director-General Irena Bokova, further evidences how destructive the Israeli lobby is to US interests. The UNESCO Director-General highlights how a key aspect of US foreign policy, the building of a global consent towards its hegemonic world order through cultural and educational projects, will be directly undermined by the withholding of these funds. The US has effectively undermined its non-militaristic interventions in Tunisia, Afghanistan, Iraq and many other theatres of conflict, which includes the so-called Arab Spring, indicating its almost complete subservience to the Israeli state.

It doesn't require much "joining of the dots" to claim that the Israeli lobby in the U.K. would also have deployed its influence over our elected government, explaining the latter's decision to abstain from the vote. What was interesting was the inadvertent broadcasting of a conversation between the American President Obama and President Sarkozy of France at the G20 summit in Cannes last week, in which Sarkozy expressed his feelings towards Netanyahu (calling Israel's Prime Minister a liar). Despite the attempts by some of the media to spin the story as the micro-politics or intrigue of presidential interactions, the real story was Obama's dismay that France did not notify in advance their intention to vote for Palestinian membership of UNESCO.

Though the Palestinian Authority has made some diplomatic gains, which would also legally constrain the Israelis from attacking historical or cultural sites in the occupied territories were these to be classified as World Heritage sites with UNESCO, this issue should also bring to attention that there is a change in the nature of conflict in the information age. There is increasingly widespread realisation of the oppression of the Palestinian people by the Israelis at a social level that is proving difficult for governments to reverse. This surge in public sentiment across European and to some extent American populations is likely to be what the conflict for a Palestinian state will be decided over.

This can also be seen by the US and UK governments' previous acrimony with UNESCO in regards to the 1984 MacBride report, formally called the New World Information and Communication Order, which called for a "nationalisation" of media to ensure democratic flows of information. Media is the key technological platform over which the powerful will attempt to manufacture consent in the subordinated, and the "undemocratic" outcome of media ownership in the hands of moguls like Murdoch and his ilk indicate how critical this nexus of politics, business and media is in contemporary conflict.

The unintended power that arises from the internet, where communication becomes more horizontal in the sense of individuals becoming not only receivers but also senders of communication, is the most likely platform where states will attempt to most heavily intervene.