A Rocky Past and a Hopeful Future for the United States & UNESCO
International institutions, however innocuous they may seem, hold tremendous influence over global affairs. In July of 2023, the United States formally rejoined the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) after pulling out in 2018. The organization, which facilitates international cooperation in education, sciences, culture, communication, and information, shares a surprisingly rocky history with the U.S. This fraught relationship highlights the prospects for the United States, its culture, and its projection of soft power.
UNESCO was founded in 1945 out of the need for a United Nations educational and cultural arm and included the U.S. as one of its initial members. While supporting its humanitarian and cultural preservation initiatives, the U.S. also saw the institution as a means to support the free flow of ideas against the Soviet bloc. From its inception, the U.S.’s involvement in UNESCO was partly a vehicle for political influence, as it sought to be the dominant cultural power in the Cold War.
Beginning in the 1960s, however, a multitude of newly decolonized nations joined the organization, changing the dynamics of membership. The New World Information and Communication Order, an emerging ideology within the organization, reflected these shifts. Popularized in the late 1970s to 1980s, the concept called for more equitable representation in global media. Proponents, including then UNESCO Director-General Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow, argued that a small number of developed nations provided the large majority of news and media stories, resulting in poor news coverage of developing nations. This imbalance disadvantaged these already poor nations by leading to a substandard understanding of these countries’ cultures and development needs.
Though responding to this imbalance seemed like a positive initiative, some countries (including the U.S.) did not approve. They saw the condemnation of industrialized nations’ media dominance and many of the proposed solutions, such as creating a UNESCO-sanctioned governing body over communications in developing countries, as a threat to freedom of the press. The organization also faced allegations of poor budget management and politicization, as it took on anti-Israel stances in the 1970s. UNESCO condemned Israel’s continued altering of Jerusalem’s historic features, and called its rule over Jerusalem an “illegal occupation.” These factors combined to prompt the Reagan administration to exit the organization in 1984.
The U.S. would rejoin UNESCO in 2003 as tensions eased, with both former Presidents Clinton and Bush expressing desires to re-enter the global forum. By exiting UNESCO for nearly 20 years, the U.S. missed opportunities to sway the U.N. further in favor of the various American wars during its absence. Bush’s announcement of American reentry was part of a speech seeking U.N. support for the Iraq War, reflecting the overlap of these interests. Following the September 11th attacks, many hoped that UNESCO membership and advocacy would allow the U.S. to build a base against radical Islamism.
Yet this easing of tensions was ultimately short-lived. When UNESCO admitted Palestine as a member state in 2011, the Obama administration was compelled to pull funding from the organization in accordance with national laws passed in 1994 that forbid the U.S. from funding any U.N. agency that accepts a group not recognized as a state by international standards. Though this freeze in funding forfeited the U.S.’s voting rights, it was able to retain its membership in UNESCO. This changed in 2016 however, when the organization ratified a formal condemnation of Israel, calling it an “occupying power” and decrying the state’s aggression against the Palestinian people. These anti-Israel resolutions prompted a complete U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO in 2017.
In July of 2023, the U.S. reentered UNESCO — a move loaded with implications. The main motivation for this desire to re-engage with the international sphere seems to be in response to China's growing soft power. China has grown to become the organization’s largest funder in the absence of the U.S. Indeed, the nation’s 57 world heritage sites (second only to Italy) and 43 intangible cultural heritages (ICH) could be a reflection of its financial sway. By comparison, the U.S. has only 25 world heritage sites and zero ICHs. These sites (such as the Pyramids of Giza or the Great Wall of China) and cultural practices (e.g. yoga in India) are recognized by UNESCO to be of universal value to humanity, deserving of protection for generations to come. The sheer number of Chinese sites that hold this respected title may be a sign of the nation’s growing prestige and influence in the international space. Richard Gowan, U.N. Director for the International Crisis Group, stated that “Biden’s team believes that Trump ceded a lot of ground to China with its anti-U.N. attitude.” By actively engaging with the international community, President Biden aims to regain that “ground” and maintain the United States’ dominant global position.
Another point of motivation is the issue of artificial intelligence (AI). Membership in UNESCO is important as the organization deals with science, technology, and the setting of ethical standards — especially as the U.N. works to set new rules on the use of AI. According to Agence France-Presse, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “They are working on rules, norms and standards for artificial intelligence. We want to be there,” in reference to UNESCO. With the rapid rise of new, largely unregulated technologies like AI, the U.S. must involve itself in these international organizations if it expects to have its interests reflected in international regulations. Otherwise, China, America’s biggest competitor and its main reason for rejoining UNESCO, may step in to define international AI regulation.
Looking into the future, this renewed engagement is a cause for hope — however unsteady it may be. American reentry may lead to the formal, global recognition of U.S. popular or minority cultures: an unrepresented category in the ranks of UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritages. Additionally, Biden’s eagerness to rejoin regardless of the organization’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict may be in part a reflection of rapidly shifting public opinions: Just in the past few years, a modest warming of opinions on the Palestinian people occurred among the American public, which may be why entry into UNESCO was not seen as controversial as it was in 2017. Indeed the U.S. reentry process carries on, even as the organization releases statements condemning the Israeli army’s attacks on educational facilities. Regardless, the influence an organization like UNESCO holds over global affairs is immense, as demonstrated by the United States' anxieties surrounding China’s sway in the institution. Though America’s track record with UNESCO is questionable, the opportunities an open international dialogue holds are countless.
