Facebook Or Facelessbook?

[Published 22 March 2012]


Can anyone out there tell me how I can have direct on-line contact with a real live person at Facebook - not just some anonymous message that is flashed on my screen?

I need your help urgently to find such a person in an effort to discuss and resolve issues which have arisen between myself and Facebook.

My problems revolve around a Facebook Group I created called “Help Restore UNESCO’S Funding” - whose objective is clearly stated in the following terms:

“Pledged to calling for UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion on the legality of Palestine’s admission to UNESCO - which if reversed would immediately enable America to resume funding 22% of UNESCO’s budget.”

The Group’s objective was to engender support for UNESCO approaching the International Court of Justice to obtain judicial confirmation on the legality of UNESCO’s decision to admit Palestine as its 195th member state. I had started the Group after UNESCO had refused to even discuss the merits of a legal opinion I had furnished.

If UNESCO’s decision was found by the Court to be in breach of UNESCO‘S Constitution - this would result in America resuming payment of its financial dues to UNESCO - totalling about $260 million until 2013 - thereby avoiding UNESCO cutting its aid to scores of millions of people world-wide in programs such as literacy, gender equality and water purification.

I received some complaints directly on the Group page from people asking that their names be removed as members and questioning how they had become members. To the best of my knowledge these complaints were from people who had already agreed to become my Friends on my own face book page. I had then joined them as members of the Group - as was permissible and appeared to be encouraged by Facebook.

On receiving these complaints those objectors were advised of the procedure to enable them to remove their names as members of the Group.

In addition I had been sending out Friend Requests to people who were members of other Groups - of which I was also a member and a frequent on-line contributor. Many of these people became my Friends and I joined them to the Group page as well - without any objection from them.

Apparently my actions incurred the wrath of Facebook following complaints received by it.

I began to receive a number of automatic messages from Facebook stating that I was sending Friend Requests to people I did not know - affording me the opportunity to respond. I explained what I had done. An automatic response in acknowledgement was the only reply received in each case.

Believing my explanation had been accepted I continued to approach members in those other Groups of which they and I were members - asking them to become my Friends.

I then received an automatic message telling me that I had sent out Friend Requests to people I did not know - and that I would not be able to send out Friend Requests for seven days. I was also advised in the message that if I thought I was seeing the message by mistake - to let Facebook know.

A response in explanation was duly sent by me setting out what I had been doing.

Again - believing my argument had been accepted I resumed my approaches and - lo and behold - I received another automatic message advising me that I could not make Friend Requests for 14 days!!

Worse was still to come.

When I tried to send a message to someone about the difficulty I was having in accessing a web site - I received another automatic message stating that my messages had been blocked temporarily to prevent sending spam. I was directed to the automated Help Center - which I suspected would only lead to another automated response.

My capacity to send messages to anyone on Facebook - unrelated to my Group page - had now been arbitrarily blocked for an indefinite period - without affording me any opportunity to respond before such action was taken.

Oh and if you think that was the end - more was yet to come.

Facebook actually notified me by “no-reply emails” that some people had requested to join my Group - people to whom I had not sent a Friend Request.

When I endeavoured to sign them up - their names had disappeared off the radar. They remain unable to become members.

Undeterred - I did send off a complaint to the “no reply” e mail address and of course - as you might guess - I have received no reply.

Just to round off this confrontation - I now find I have been removed as a member of one of the Groups and the name of that Group has been removed from my Facebook page. This has been done without any notification to me.

When I tried to message the Administrator of the Group to find out what had happened - I was notified by another flashing message that I had been blocked because multiple people to whom I had sent Friend Requests indicated they did not know me.

I can understand that this very powerful social media site can do as it likes in the way it manages its affairs. But what they are doing seems to me to be a denial of natural justice - of the right to be given a fair hearing and a reasoned judgment after hearing all the facts.

I only hope that being the nerd I am - I have somehow missed a contact address of a real person at Facebook with whom I can correspond to try and sort out these issues.

If this is not possible - then my Group page has become effectively impacted in recruiting new members and my capacity to message anyone on Facebook has been frozen for I do not know how long.

Has anyone else had similar problems making personal contact with a human being at Facebook when they have issues that need to be resolved through face-to-face contact?

Discouraging communication and arbitrary decision making seems to be the complete opposite of what Facebook is all about - or should be about.

This is hardly a way to win Friends and influence people.

So my plea is - can anyone out there put a face to Facebook to help me resolve my run-in?

Palestine In Tatters - Obama's Obsolescent Opinion Hardly Matters

[Published 15 March 2012]


The much vaunted reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah has become yet another missed opportunity and non-event following revelations by the Palestinian Central Elections Commission (CEC) chief electoral officer - Hisham Kuhail - that the May 4 date set for presidential and parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza will not eventuate.

There has been no parliamentary poll in Gaza since 2006 - and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has continued in the role of President illegally after the expiration of his term in 2009.

In an interview with The National - Mr Kuhail said the commission cannot stage the elections primarily because Hamas will not allow it to make the necessary preparations in Gaza - such as updating the voting registry and installing voting centres. The West Bank voter register was updated last August.

Mr Kuhail reportedly said his team was denied permission to do this in Gaza during a meeting there last month with aides to Hamas Prime Minister in Gaza - Ismail Haniyeh

Mr Kuhail said the problem could only be resolved by real reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah.

Under Palestinian law - Palestinian Authority President - Mahmoud Abbas - must issue a decree instructing the CEC to begin preparing for the elections. This process takes 90 days.

Mr Kuhail said:

“But to this moment, that has not happened, The earliest feasible date to organize an election would be after June”

A Hamas-Fatah agreement signed in Cairo last year was supposed to have led to an interim government that would govern both Gaza and the West Bank until elections took place. This has yet to materialise.

Islamic Jihad’s Secretary-General - Ramadan Abdullah Shallah - has lamented on the continuing differences of opinion between Hamas and Fatah that have prevented the implementation of any deal:

“Each side has its defense and pretexts, but the loser is our people because its interests are being ignored ... “

Regrettably those interests have been ignored for the last 75 years since the Peel Committee first recommended the partition of Palestine into an Arab State and a Jewish State.

Meanwhile American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - speaking in New York after a meeting of the impotent Quartet - America, Russia, The European Union and the United Nations - could only repeat the following tired mantra repeatedly invoked by President Obama:

“President Obama and I have been consistent in our belief that the Palestinian people – like their Arab neighbors, Israelis, and all people – deserve dignity, liberty and the right to decide their own futures. They deserve a viable,independent Palestine,alongside a secure Israel.”

Clearly the idea of creating such a new Arab state between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history - and the threats any such state would pose to Israel’s security - has become passé.

This solution - which may have looked attractive when recycled in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo Accords - has been fatally impacted by events in the region and in Iran during the past twelve months - not to mention the 200 rockets fired from Gaza into Israeli civilian population centres this past week.

Even if Hamas and Fatah were to miraculously embrace in a genuine show of fraternal respect - how could Israel be expected to deal with any Government in which Hamas is a member - when Haniyeh openly declared on 14 December last:

“Today, we say, in a clear and unambiguous fashion: The armed resistance and armed struggle are our strategic choice and our path to liberate the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, and to drive the usurping invaders out of the blessed land of Palestine.”

This battle cry is overshadowed by Fatah and the PLO’s more strident demand - that Jordan be included in the Palestinian Arab State it seeks to create.

Time waits for no man - and in the case of the Palestinian Arabs they have spurned many opportunities to gain for themselves - in the West Bank and Gaza - a second independent and exclusively Arab state in former Palestine - in addition to Jordan - in

(i) 1947
(ii) Between 1948-1967
(iii) 2000
(iv) 2008

President Obama needs to fully comprehend what well known Israeli dove Yossi Alpher recently wrote:

“The Israeli-Palestinian peace process, as we have known it since the 1993 signing of the Oslo accords, essentially died more than three years ago with the demise of the final status talks between then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas”

Continuing to pretend there is any life left in the Oslo Accords and President Bush’s 2002 Roadmap is the height of folly and recklessness. Believing it can ever be implemented is with respect - gross stupidity.

Maybe President Obama might find it easier to adopt a new mantra based on the following remark recently made by an apparently intelligent 18-year-old girl from Ramallah - who told the person interviewing her for a scholarship to a college in America:

“... the [Jewish] “settlers” [in the West Bank] are really refugees. They, too, are returning to their ancestral homelands. It wouldn’t be fair to tell them to leave.”>

Maybe there is a message for President Obama in these few well chosen words - stop engaging in fiction - come back into the real world - and face the following facts:

1. The Jewish-Arab conflict over Palestine has been ongoing for 130 years - long before there were “Israelis”, Palestinians”, “Transjordanians” and “Jordanians”.

2. Jews have their sovereign State in 17% of former Palestine - now called Israel.

3. Arabs have their sovereign state in 77% of former Palestine.- now called Jordan

4. Just 6% of former Palestine - the West Bank and Gaza - remains to be allocated between Jews and Arabs - who both are claiming sovereignty in these areas.

5. Attempts between Israel and the PLO to resolve sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza have irretrievably broken down.

6. New Arab negotiating partners are now needed to replace the PLO and sit down with Israel to try and resolve the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza.

7. Those Arab partners should be Jordan and Egypt - the only two Arab States to have signed peace treaties with Israel and the last Arab occupiers of Gaza and the West Bank between 1948-1967.

Facing up to these realities is necessary - if President Obama and America is to become relevant in advancing the resolution of this long-running conflict.

President Obama does not have the luxury of time - because even this window of opportunity - which has remained open since 6 June 1967 - is fast being slammed in his face.

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.

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?