Australia Can Rescue UNESCO From Palestine Decision

[Published 30 March 2012]


Australia’s new Foreign Minister - Bob Carr - needs to urgently review the decision adopted by the Australian National Commission for UNESCO (ANCUNESCO) - that the admission of Palestine as UNESCO’s 195th member State was consistent with UNESCO‘s Constitution and its Rules of Procedure.

Only 107 of UNESCO’s 194 member states voted in favour of the resolution to admit Palestine on 31 October 2011. Australia was one of 14 countries that voted against - whilst 52 abstained and another 21 were absent from the vote including some who were ineligible to vote due to unpaid membership fees.

The consequences of that vote have been catastrophic for UNESCO - and for scores of millions of people around the world dependent on UNESCO’s planned programs during 2012-2013.

22% of UNESCO’s budget has been lost as a result of America immediately suspending payment of membership dues totalling $260 million to the end of 2013 - because of a 20 years old American domestic law mandating such action.

Staff retrenchments are growing and global programs over the next two years - such as literacy, gender equality, water purification, AIDS and HIV prevention - will have to be abandoned or curtailed - unless America resumes its payments or alternative sources of funding are found,

An Emergency Donor Fund set up by UNESCO has not been very successful - with only about $42 million being raised or pledged in the last four months - much of it to be used to alleviate suffering among the populations in the donor or adjacent countries - rather than universally.

In its latest move to get the American funding back - UNESCO will soon be opening an office in Washington to lobby Congress to amend the law so as to enable the American tap to be turned on again.

Such lobbying is extremely unlikely to succeed - since the chances of Congress backing away from the law mandating the suspension of funds to any United Nations Agency that accepts the PLO as a full member - outside of negotiations with Israel - is doomed to failure.

Those 107 states who voted to admit Palestine were warned by UNESCO Director-General Irina Bukova of the risk of losing the American funding before they cast their votes. Defiantly ignoring her unambiguous message was both irresponsible and reckless and has caused UNESCO to create its own self induced financial and humanitarian crisis.

Australia’s Head of Mission - Ms Gita Kamath - gave the assembled delegates the following reasons for Australia‘s negative 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 decision to admit Palestine is open to possible legal challenge for two reasons:

1. Only states can be admitted to UNESCO and Palestine is not a state,

2. The number of votes required to admit Palestine is 129 - not the 107 received

After initially receiving an irrelevant response from UNESCO and no answer to a detailed submission made by me on the voting requirements of the Constitution - I then wrote to Ms Kamath on 15 January - urging her to press UNESCO to review the adequacy of the vote to admit Palestine to UNESCO - and to approach other member States to do likewise.

Ms Kamath’s initial response was identical to UNESCO’s first response to me..

Undeterred - I then sent Ms Kamath the detailed submission I had given UNESCO. Like UNESCO - neither she nor ANCUNESCO has been prepared to discuss the merits of that submission.

Australia’s former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister - Kevin Rudd - had been actively seeking support for Australia to gain a seat on the UN Security Council. Perhaps he believed that taking a lead role to get UNESCO out of its current woes by promoting Court action that could see Palestine being possibly removed from UNESCO - could have seriously dealt a fatal blow to Australia’s chances of securing that Security Council seat.

There seems to be no other explanation for ANCUNESCO refusing to even consider my submission.

Hopefully Bob Carr will place the looming global humanitarian crisis above the quest for a seat on the UN Security Council. He should take a lead role in getting UNESCO to approach the International Court - as the quickest and best means of restoring the lost American funding.

Australia is perfectly positioned to lobby UNESCO member states to grab this legal lifebelt.

Australia’s support for the creation of a Palestinian State has been long standing - as Ms Kamath pointed out at the time of the Palestine vote:

“Australia strongly supports the aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state and believes a negotiated peace process between the parties is the way to achieve this….

Australia has been a consistent supporter of the peace process. We have provided extensive support and committed to over $300 million in humanitarian and development assistance in the next five years building up the institutions of a future Palestinian state.”

Had the delegates from the 107 pro-Palestine voting states followed Australia’s lead - UNESCO would not be in the sorry position it is today.

If Australia continues to sit pat on its heels - it will be just as responsible for UNESCO’s ongoing problems as those whose votes have put UNESCO in this bind,

Those 87 countries that declined to vote for Palestine’s admission - for whatever reason - should be readily amenable to an approach by Australia to join in urging UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court on the legality of its decision to admit Palestine.

Whilst these countries can rightly claim to not be blamed for the black hole UNESCO has fallen into because of the intemperate action of 107 of their fellow member states - they cannot also afford to sit back and do nothing to rectify a decision which could be in breach of UNESCO’s Constitution - especially given the global humanitarian problems it has created.

Bob Carr - the former Premier of New South Wales - was parachuted into the role of Australia’s Foreign Minister from political retirement in the space of a few days.

He seems the perfect choice to lobby member States to get UNESCO to beat a path to the International Court.

If Australia is too timid to act - other naysayer countries like Canada, America, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway or Germany should take up the lead role to save UNESCO from itself.

Someone needs to act quickly as the global humanitarian crisis adds more victims every day.

UNESCO Decision On "Palestine" Backfires Badly

[Published 7 March 2012]


A Report just issued by UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova reveals the extent of the serious crisis facing UNESCO following its decision to admit “Palestine” as its 195th member State - contrary to the terms of UNESCO’S own Constitution and customary international law.

Prior to the vote to admit “Palestine” on 31 October 2011 - Ms Bokova had issued delegates with this warning:

“Let me be frank. As Director General it is my responsibility to say that I am concerned by the potential challenges that may arise to the universality and financial stability of the Organization. I’m worried we may confront a situation that could erode UNESCO as a universal platform for dialogue. I’m worried for the stability of its budget. It is well known that funding from our largest contributor the United States may be jeopardized. I believe it’s the responsibility of all of us to make sure that UNESCO does not suffer as a result”

Her unambiguous and clearly articulated message was ignored - but it has been proved to be correct.

The United States did in fact immediately suspend its payments to UNESCO - denying UNESCO about US$260 million for the period 2011- 2013 - amounting to 22% of UNESCO’S budget.

The suspension of such payments was mandated by American law for any international organization that took unilateral action to recognize “Palestine“ outside the negotiations being conducted between Israel and the PLO. There appears to be little prospect of that law being circumvented.- especially in an election year.

Ms Bokova was then forced to prepare her current Report for the 48 members of UNESCO’S Executive Committee to revise UNESCO’S already predetermined programs for global humanitarian aid for 2012-2013 to cope with the sudden loss of this American revenue.

The Report does not make for pretty reading.

Ms Bokova had to make an unprecedented call on member States to pay their annual subscriptions in advance to give her some cash up front to implement the budgeted programs from 1 January with minimum disruption - whilst she tried to sort out the financial mess that she had inherited as a result of the Palestine vote.

Her plea was not in vain. The total of advance payments received at 31 December 2011 amounted to $19.9 million compared to $2.2 million at the end of 2009. As of 31 January 2012, $88.4 million of 2012 assessed contributions have been received as compared to $21 million in January 2010.

However Ms Bokova is merely postponing making the really hard decisions on the cutting or abandonment of programs - hoping against hope no doubt for some miracle before these advance payments are swallowed up leaving an enormous black hole in UNESCO’S bank accounts

Her action in setting up an Emergency Donor Fund has been poorly supported with just US$42 million being pledged in the three months since its formation - only $32000 of which was donated by the public,public institutions and private endowments.

Only US$31.2 million of the US$72 million owing by America for 2009-2011 was recouped by cuts of 8% in activity budgets (US$21.7million) and 2% in staff cost budgets (US$9.5 million.)

Many UNESCO members are already in arrears with their contributions - which only exacerbates the cash flow needed to maintain the designated global programs. The percentage of unpaid contributions for 2009-2011 has significantly increased from 3% at the end of 2009 to 12% at the end of 2011.

Overall the total unpaid contributions by member states amount to a staggering $98.7 million at 31 December 2011 - twice the level at end of 2009.

UNESCO was also forced to draw down its total Working Capital Fund (WCF) of US$30 million to finance its programs as a result of its parlous financial position.

90% of UNESCO’S budget is paid by 25 of the 195 member states - putting the Organization at risk when one of them delays its payment. The WCF was the only reserve available to face delays in the payment of contributions. This reserve belongs to Member States and is not meant to finance programmes or to be used where a member suspends its payments..

The Report indicates there will be deep cuts in programs designed to help improve the lives of scores of millions of people world wide - as well as many more staff retrenchments.

An analysis of the provisional work plans as at end January 2012 shows the profound impact of the severe funding constraints across the entire Organization, which reaches into core priorities and operations.

The funding shortfall has forced UNESCO to start the 2012-2013 biennium with a reduced Regular Programme budget which translates into a reduction of some 58% to the education activity budget.

In some areas such as HIV and AIDS - only limited regular programme funds will be allocated to be used as “seed funding”. Ms Bokova hopes the shortfall will be supplemented from extra-budgetary resources.

The Natural Sciences Sector’s work plan budget has been reduced by 31%. The current budgetary situation has had very serious consequences for this Sector. Had the sector not freezed or abolished vacant posts, the cut in the regular programme budget would have been represented in a net negative allocation for regular programme activities. However, by delaying the recruitment of over 20 posts (for varying time periods), the Sector generated savings under the staff costs, which in turn were used to create budget for programme activities.

Ms Bokova’s Report has received a frosty reception from the International Staff Association of UNESCO - which Ms Bokova describes as a “staff confidence crisis”.

The Association concludes that the Report:

“lists haphazardly reductions in administrative costs and the postponement or cancellation of programme activities. Elements considered to be key priorities in the construction of a modern personnel management system for the Organization have been penalized inter alia through the suspension of the merit-based promotion scheme, investments in human resources management computer tools and training programmes and the cancellation of gender priority evaluation activities and training for Administrative Officers”

Yet this crisis could have been possibly averted by UNESCO spending just $100000 seeking an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legality of its decision to admit “Palestine”. No suggested recommendation for this course of action appears in Ms Bokova’s Report.

An opinion declaring Palestine’s admission to be unconstitutional would lead to an immediate inflow of American funds and an end to UNESCO’S current woes.

UNESCO obviously still prefers to play politics at a real cost to its universality and financial stability.

Go figure - and spare a thought for those millions of people world wide who are fast becoming victims of UNESCO’S inaction to try and reverse the disastrous consequences of its decision on “Palestine”

UNESCO Must Choose - "Palestine" Or The World

[Published 17 February 2012]


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:

1. 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”?

2. 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.

Palestine Poison Pill Paralyses UNESCO

[Published 2 February 2012]


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 disclosedthat 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 Bokovapointed 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 Bokovahastened 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.

Palestine - UNESCO Membership May Be Unconstitutional

[Published 16 November 2011]


Palestine’s membership of UNESCO could be under serious legal threat - as the vote approving such admission comes under increasing scrutiny.

The decision to admit Palestine has come at great financial cost to UNESCO and has threatened the abandonment or postponement of many of its worthy and worthwhile programs.

UNESCO notes in a Press Release on 10 November:

"The U.S has withheld its contributions following the admission of Palestine to UNESCO on 31 October. They were required to do so by U.S. laws dating from the 1990s. This leaves UNESCO with an immediate shortfall of US$65m to the end of 2011, and a further gap of 22 percent in its US$653m budget for 2012-2013. Israel has now followed suit and withheld its contribution of US$1.5m (0.3 percent of UNESCO’s budget) for 2012-2013.

UNESCO Director General Irina Bokova has now launched an Emergency Multi-Donor Fund to help find the very large shortfall resulting from dues withheld by the United States. It has left an enormous black hole to fill - given the financial crisis enveloping the European Union and its members."

One way of rescuing UNESCO from its current predicament would be to approach the International Court of Justice seeking an Advisory Opinion on the legality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

Two questions need to be answered - even more urgently now - following the UN Admissions Committee failing to agree on whether Palestine qualified for membership of the UN as a “peace-loving State” as specifically required by Article 4 (1) of the UN Charter.

I. Is Palestine a State enabling it to be admitted to UNESCO under Article II 2 of the UNESCO Constitution?

Article II 2 provides:

"Subject to the conditions of the Agreement between this Organization and the United Nations Organization, approved pursuant to Article X of this Constitution, states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference."

Palestine’s applications to both UNESCO and the UN required that in each case it be a State to qualify for membership.

The UN Admissions Committee appears to have been divided on whether it so qualified.

One could reasonably infer that this was also one of the issues that was uppermost in the minds of the UNESCO General Conference where only 51 out of the 137 non-Islamic states voted in favor of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO.

In customary international law as codified in the Montevideo Convention 1933 - it would appear that Palestine did not possess the four necessary legal requirements to call itself a State.

UNESCO is required to ensure its Constitution is faithfully observed at all times.

Since the UN interpretation appears to contradict the UNESCO interpretation - legal clarification by approaching the International Court of Justice for an Advisory Opinion is justified and indeed necessary.

II. Was Palestine’s admission to UNESCO unconstitutional because the majority vote required for its admission under Article II 2 of the UNESCO Constitution was not reached?

The vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO was 107 for, 16 against and 52 abstentions (which do not count as votes).

There are 194 members of the UN - so a two thirds majority vote required would be 129. As only 107 votes were in favour - Palestine’s admission to UNESCO did not satisfy the provisions of the Constitution and should be declared invalid.

This viewpoint is further strengthened by the provisions of Article II 3 :

"Territories or groups of territories which are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as Associate Members by the General Conference by a two-thirds majority of Members present and voting, upon application made on behalf of such territory or group of territories by the Member or other authority having responsibility for their international relations. The nature and extent of the rights and obligations of Associate Members shall be determined by the General Conference."

Clearly the Constitution makes a significant distinction in the specific section of the Constitution dealing with Membership between the vote needed to admit Members and the vote needed to admit Associate Members

This clear difference is however clouded by the provisions of Clause IV B 8(a):

"Each Member State shall have one vote in the General Conference. Decisions shall be made by a simple majority except in cases in which a two-thirds majority is required by the provisions of this Constitution, or the Rules of Procedure of the General Conference. A majority shall be a majority of the Members present and voting."

The International Court of Justice needs to be urgently approached to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies and uncertainties posed by these contradictory provisions in UNESCO’s constitution.

I put some questions on these issues to UNESCO’s Director of Liaison Office in New York ten days ago - but have been met by a wall of silence despite sending him a reminder.

Approaching the International Court of Justice could prove to be the financial lifeline UNESCO so desperately needs - since a ruling that Palestine’s admission was unconstitutional would assuredly restore America’s financial commitment to UNESCO.

Will political or financial pressure win the day? Will the political fallout involving the possible removal of Palestine from UNESCO dissuade UNESCO from approaching the International Court of Justice for its advisory opinion - thereby allowing its financial woes to continue and its projects to founder ?

Either way UNESCO cannot be seen to create the impression that any of its actions are not in strict accord with its Constitution and that it is prepared to act in possible contravention of its own Constitution.

To do so - whilst the above two questions remain definitively unanswered by the International Court of Justice - could well persuade those 86 non-Islamic member states who did not vote for Palestine’s admission to UNESCO to also cut or withhold their financial contributions to UNESCO until the Court’s ruling is obtained.

That would surely be the beginning of the end for UNESCO- which cannot be seen as a law unto itself and certainly cannot financially afford to do so.