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.

UNESCO On The Nose

[Published 9 February 2012]


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:

1. 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.

2. 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 $100 million 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.

3. 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”

4. 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

5. 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 2012-2013 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.

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.

UNESCO Unmoved To Try And End Humanitarian Crisis

[Published 26 January 2012]

The Director of the Division of Public Information at UNESCO - Mr Neil Ford - has made it clear that UNESCO still refuses to approach the International 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 - 5 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 criticized 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:

1. Establishing an Emergency Fund - which has met with little success.

According to CHRHL 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 withhold 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.

2. 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?

Palestine Blunder Costs UNESCO $167 Million in 2012-2013

[Published 5 January 2012]


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 1990’s.

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. 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.

Palestine - Bye Bye Oslo, Hello Jordan and Egypt

[Published 29 December 2011]


Veteran Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk may have been a little premature when he stated on 20 September:

"It’s over: the “peace process”, the “road map”, the “Oslo agreement”; the whole fandango is history. Personally, I think “Palestine” is a fantasy state, impossible to create now that the Israelis have stolen so much of the Arabs’ land for their colonial projects."

Fisk - in attributing this simplistic reason for signing Oslo’s death certificate - totally ignored the two offers made by Israel in 2001 and 2008 to cede its claims under the Mandate for Palestine and the United Nations Charter in more than 90% of the land won from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War.

The real reasons for Oslo’s demise are far deeper and more complex - revealing unbridgeable gaps between Israel and the PLO in reaching any agreement with regard to the following issues after failed on and off negotiations extending over the last 19 years:

1.Israel’s demands that
(i) Israel be recognized as the Jewish State
(ii) Any Palestinian State be demilitarized
(iii)The final borders determined between it and a Palestinian State be secure and recognized boundaries as stipulated by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338

2.The PLO’s demands that
(i) Israel cede its claims in 100% of the territory won from Jordan in the 1967 War - with possibly equivalent land swaps to negate the removal of Jews from their homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem
(ii) Israel agree to accept millions of Palestinian Arabs - and their descendants - who became refugees as a result of the 1948 War

Fisk’s prediction has however been given added weight with the news this week that Hamas has agreed to join the PLO.

If this was to actually occur Israel’s Prime Minister made his government’s position very clear when Israel Radio reportedly quoted him as saying that if Hamas joins the Palestinian government, he would refuse to conduct peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

Little comfort can be taken from the news that the Palestinian Authority might now be prepared to resume the long stalled peace negotiations with Israel if it released 100 prisoners. The parties can talk till the cows come in. But after 19 fruitless years - can sufficient pressure be put on both sides to come to an agreement on all their outstanding demands?

The Oslo Accords - and the Palestinian Authority - were born amid great enthusiasm in 1993.

The Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee - Francis Sejersted - expressed the following hopes of the Committee when awarding the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize jointly to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzchak Rabin:

"In the committee’s view, the so-called Oslo Accords concluded last year between Israel and the PLO meant that developments in the Middle East had taken a new turning. What was revolutionary about them was the de facto mutual recognition by the two parties. Not least by virtue of that recognition, the accords opened up a possible way out of the vicious circle of violence breeding violence, and towards peaceful co-existence."

The Nobel Committee’s optimism was misplaced.

Yasser Arafat had signed a side letter dated 9 September 1993 - nine days prior to signing the Declaration of Principles in which he assured Yitzchak Rabin:

"The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era… I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. The PLO commits itself…to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations…the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators…the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel’s right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant."

In breach of those commitments:

1. The PLO Covenant still remains unchanged and unrevised in 2011.
2. The PLO has rejected the idea of Israel being entitled to secure and recognized borders as required under Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338
3. The PLO has unilaterally sought to gain statehood - not through negotiations - but by seeking recognition and admission to the United Nations and UNESCO.
4. The PLO is demanding pre-conditions for resuming the stalled negotiations with Israel.

Indeed one would be unable to find any improvement in the relationship between Israel and the PLO in 2011 to that which existed in 1994 when Mr Serjested declared:

"The situation is still full of tension, marked by violence, killings, and insecurity, and stability is still far to seek"

The PLO has been given its opportunity for the last 19 years to create a second Arab state in former Palestine - in addition to Jordan - but quite frankly has missed the boat.

Martin Sherman has summed up the current situation in these terms:

"For almost two decades after the Oslo Accords—despite massive financial aid and political support—they have produced nothing but a deeply divided entity, crippled by corruption and cronyism.

The result is a dysfunctional polity unable to conduct even the semblance of timely elections, and a puny economy, comprising a minuscule private sector and a bloated public one, totally unsustainable without massive infusions of foreign funds."

Sherman’s prescription to abandon Oslo and the two-state solution predicated by the Bush Roadmap is described by him as follows :

"Since the geography is immutable, the focus must be on the demography.

It is thus no more than “elementary” that the long-term preservation of the Jewish state must involve the relocation of the non-Israeli Arabs between the river and the sea. Any other option is self-deluded wishful thinking—or at least the burden of proof to show otherwise is on the proponents of such an option, especially in view of the post-Oslo/post-disengagement experiences."

I beg to differ.

Restoring the status quo at 4 June 1967 - as far as can now be done in direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan (and possibly Egypt) and within the framework of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and their existing peace treaties - will involve no-one - Arab or Jew - having to leave his current home unless he voluntarily wishes to do so.

This is not self-deluded wishful thinking - but It will need some pressure by the Quartet - America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - to be placed on Jordan and Egypt to sit down and negotiate with Israel if they refuse to do so voluntarily.

The alternative - continued tension, violence, insecurity, killings and instability - cannot be allowed to deteriorate into an inevitable slide into open warfare.

To hope for anything else as we usher in 2012 is pure folly.

Palestine - Flag Flies, UNESCO Cries, Legality Dies

[Published 22 December 2011]


UNESCO has paid a high price for hoisting the flag of “Palestine” among the 194 other flags flying at UNESCO’s Paris headquarters this week.

So far the price tag has been about $65 million in annual contributions outstanding by the United States and Israel to the end of December following UNESCO admitting “Palestine” as a member State on 31 October.

Worse is yet to come for UNESCO with the loss of at least $120 million in 2012-2013 - about 22% of its annual budget - and ongoing repetition of at least the same shortfall in subsequent years.

The United States ceased its annual contribution to UNESCO in compliance with American domestic law. The suspension was automatic—a 1990’s law blacklists funding to any UN agency that admits Palestine.

Israel withheld the balance of this year’s contribution to show its displeasure at the PLO’s action in taking unilateral action to recognize any Palestinian State outside the face to face negotiations prescribed by the Oslo Accords and the Bush Road Map.

Are any other UNESCO member states liable to follow suit or help to make up the shortfall?

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister - John Baird - has made it crystal clear that Canada - one of UNESCO’s larger donors to the tune of $10 million per annum - will not be helping to make up the shortfall - stating.

"Under no circumstances will Canada cover the budgeting shortfall as a result of this decision and Canada’s decided to freeze all further voluntary contributions to UNESCO. The bottom line is there’s going to be a large hole in UNESCO’s budget because of the American law which withdraws funding, and people at UNESCO should not look to Canada to fill that budget hole. They’ll have to go to the countries who supported this resolution, that caused this budget loophole. And if they want to appeal to Canada to make even more contributions to voluntary UNESCO initiatives, we will not be looking at entertaining new ones.”

UNESCO only has itself to blame for finding itself in this predicament - since the decision to admit Palestine as a member of UNESCO on the affirmative votes of 107 of its members could be in clear breach of its Constitution which appears to require a majority of 129 votes for any such resolution to have been passed.

A strange silence has descended over UNESCO since I first raised this question with the Director UNESCO Liason Office in New York on 1 November. Three more emails were required before I received any response - when I was eventually advised on 28 November that my inquiry was being referred to the press and media senior officer for UNESCO in New York.

I thought this a strange referral. The nature of my inquiry surely should have been better dealt with by UNESCO’s legal advisors.

A reply was received on 30 November from UNESCO’s media officer. It still failed to satisfactorily answer what was a very simple query which should have elicited an immediate and definitive response from UNESCO - did Palestine’s admission to UNESCO require 107 or 129 affirmative votes?

I put that question again to the Media Officer on 1 December. On 11 December I received a formal response that she would be consulting her colleagues. She added a strange rider to her email - wanting to know for which media I was reporting. Why this would have any relevance to my request was very puzzling.

Nevertheless I readily provided her with an answer on 12 December and requested an early response to my 1 December email. I am still waiting to hear from UNESCO.

The longer UNESCO dithers - the more convinced I am that UNESCO has made a monumental mistake in admitting Palestine in apparent breach of the provisions of its own Constitution.

Should UNESCO be entitled to act in breach of its own Constitution and choose to studiously ignore investigating any alleged breach when drawn to its attention?

Does the speed of UNESCO’s response to media enquiries depend on the source of the particular media outlet making the enquiry? Does UNESCO believe the legality of its decision will be swept under the carpet if not too many people read an article on a particular web site which does not have the circulation of the New York Times or the Guardian?

87 of the 194 members of UNESCO did not vote for the admission of Palestine to UNESCO. Like Canada - UNESCO will probably find little sympathy to any request for them to donate any money to make up this massive shortfall.

UNESCO programs will undoubtedly be affected or cut. It has warned that 20 of its 60 field offices may have to close.

UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova has gone on record stating:

"UNESCO is facing a difficult situation. It’s a test for our organization."

That is understating what surely is a monumental and ongoing problem.

A review of the legality of the decision to admit Palestine may be the answer to UNESCO’s cries for member states to make up the shortfall.

I have waited patiently for seven weeks for a definitive response from UNESCO indicating this would occur. None has been forthcoming.

There are at least a hundred and twenty million reasons - accumulating annually - for reviewing that decision.

The financial turmoil which now surrounds UNESCO surely justifies an urgent approach to the International Court of Justice for its advisory opinion on whether Palestine’s admission as a member of UNESCO has been legally made in accordance with the UNESCO Constitution.

Constitutional certainty or the begging bowl?

That is what UNESCO should be seriously considering without further posturing or delay.