قبل عامين اثنين، كتبت في هذه الصحيفة مقالاً عنوانه: لماذا عادت الولايات المتحدة إلى اليونسكو؟ (https://www.okaz.com.sa/culture/culture/2140497). وكان موجز المقال:
«بدأت علاقة الولايات المتحدة باليونسكو منذ تأسيس المنظمة الدولية في عام 1946، إذ كانت أمريكا إحدى الدول المؤسِّسة، جنباً إلى جانب المملكة العربية السعودية ودول أخرى قليلة.
في عام 1984، قررت الولايات المتحدة الانسحاب من اليونسكو؛ احتجاجاً على ما أسمته انحياز المنظمة للأيديولوجيا الشيوعية، إبان سخونة الحرب الباردة، (الطلقة الأولى!).
في عام 2003، عادت الولايات المتحدة للانضمام إلى اليونسكو.
في عام 2017، انسحبت الولايات المتحدة من اليونسكو مرة أخرى؛ احتجاجاً على ما وصفته بانحياز المنظمة ضد إسرائيل، بعد التصويت على القرار الشهير عام 2011 بجعل فلسطين دولة كاملة العضوية في المنظمة، (الطلقة الثانية!).
وفي 25 يوليو 2023، عادت الولايات المتحدة للانضمام إلى اليونسكو».
وختمت مقدمة المقالة تلك بسؤال:
«متى ستكون (الطلقة الثالثة) بين الشريكين؟!»
لم أكن أتوقع أن يأتي الجواب على سؤالي بهذه السرعة، ففي 22 يوليو الجاري 2025، أعلنت الإدارة الأمريكية قرار انسحاب الولايات المتحدة من عضوية منظمة اليونسكو، حتى قبل أن تُكمل عامين من عودتها الأخيرة.
إذاً، بهذا القرار الجديد تكون أمريكا قد طلقت اليونسكو ثلاث طلقات، فهل سيكون هذا الانفصال بلا رجعة؟!
***
لماذا هذه الطلقات الثلاث؟
في كل مرة تعلن الولايات المتحدة سبباً، أو أسباباً، للخروج من المنظمة الدولية: التحيز ضد المصالح الأمريكية، التخبط الإداري، الفساد المالي، الانحياز ضد إسرائيل، الانحياز مع الصين.
في الواقع أن السبب الحقيقي للانسحاب المتكرر ليس أيّ من هذه الأسباب، فاتهام أي منظمة دولية بأنها منحازة لقضيةٍ ما أو جانبٍ ما، هو التواء على حقيقة واضحة مفادها أن الدول الأعضاء في المنظمة؛ أي منظمة، هم الذين يصنعون مواقفها عبر وضع مشاريع القرارات ثم مناقشتها علانيةً ثم التصويت عليها ثم اعتمادها، فالانحياز المزعوم هو انحياز الأغلبية ضد الأقلية عند التصويت. وهذا هو العمود الفقري لأخلاقيات الديمقراطية التي يسوّق الغرب لها في أنحاء العالم.
السبب الحقيقي للانسحاب الأمريكي المتكرر من اليونسكو هو أنها منظمة خالية من حق النقض (الڤيتو) الذي يعطي دولة عظمى الحرية المطلقة في نقض قرار صوتت عليه كل دول العالم، أو تكتلات العالم كما يجري في مجلس الأمن كل حين!
أي أن الولايات المتحدة «الديمقراطية» لا تريد للمنظمات الدولية أن تكون ديمقراطية تعامل الدول الأعضاء سواسية.
بإيجاز، فإن الولايات المتحدة تمارس ديمقراطيتها في الداخل الأمريكي، وللشعب الأمريكي فقط. أما في خارج الأرض الأمريكية فتمارس سياسة الرأي الواحد المطلق.
***
يتعذّر البعض للموقف الأمريكي من المنظمات الدولية، واليونسكو هنا تحديداً، بمبرر أنها تدفع الحصة الأكبر من ميزانية المنظمة (22%)، فكأنه من حقها إزاء ذلك أن تهيمن على مواقف المنظمة وقراراتها.
والحقيقة أن هذا التعذير غير مقبول؛ فالذي تدفعه الولايات المتحدة ليس تبرعاً طوعياً (Donation) تمننْ به على المنظمة، بل جزء من المساهمة الإلزامية (Contribution) التي يجب على الدول الأعضاء في أي منظمة دفعها بلا منّة. ويتم تحديد قيمة المساهمة لكل دولة بناء على معادلة رياضية موحدة يجري رسمها باعتبار: الناتج المحلي للدولة ودخل الفرد وحجم التجارة الخارجية، وعوامل أخرى متفاوتة. ويكون ذلك مشتقاً بشكل أساسي من مقياس الأنصبة المقررة في الأمم المتحدة، مع بعض التعديلات.
يجدر التنويه بأن إدارة اليونسكو قد تنبهت أثناء الانسحاب السابق إلى هذا الخطر في انخفاض الميزانية، فأوجدت مصادر تمويلية بديلة لميزانية المنظمة مكّنتها من تخفيض نسبة الولايات المتحدة في المساهمة الإلزامية من 22% إلى 8% فقط، ما يعني تقليل خسارة اليونسكو من الانسحاب الأمريكي، بينما المتغيرات في الساحة العالمية تزيد من خسارة الولايات المتحدة، انسحاباً بعد آخر!
***
في يوم الأربعاء 12 أكتوبر 2011 (قبيل التصويت الناجح على جعل فلسطين دولة عضو في اليونسكو) زارني في مكتبي بالمنظمة السيد ديفيد كيليون سفير الولايات المتحدة لدى اليونسكو، وقد جاء يطلب مني أن أتدخل لدى الوفد الفلسطيني بطلب سحب مشروع قرار الاعتراف قبل التصويت عليه (خلال 15 يوماً فقط)، وعندما لم يجد تجاوباً مني قال:
«لو اعتُمد القرار فعلاً فستعلن الولايات المتحدة انسحابها من المنظمة أو تجميد مساهمتها المالية فيها، ونحن لا نريد أن نضطر لذلك!».
فأجبته: «سيزعجنا وسيؤذي المنظمة انسحاب دولة مؤثرة كالولايات المتحدة أو تجميد مساهمتها. لكن سيكون مؤذياً للمنظمة أيضاً أن تبقى قراراتها رهينة مزاج الدول ذات الحصص الكبرى في ميزانيتها. المساواة بين تأثير الدول الأعضاء في قرارات الوكالات الدولية هو ما يميزها عن مجلس الأمن الذي يتحكم به فيتو الدول الكبرى». (وضعت تفاصيل اللقاء الثنائي كاملاً في كتابي: النضال الدبلوماسي 2018).
بات الانسحاب الأمريكي من المنظمة مضراً مالياً، إلى حدٍّ ما.. ونافعاً أخلاقياً، إلى حدٍّ كبير.
زياد بن عبدالله الدريس
أمريكا واليونسكو.. الطلقة الثالثة !
27 يوليو 2025 - 00:05
|
آخر تحديث 27 يوليو 2025 - 00:05
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
Two years ago, I wrote an article in this newspaper titled: Why Did the United States Return to UNESCO? (https://www.okaz.com.sa/culture/culture/2140497). The summary of the article was:
“The relationship between the United States and UNESCO began with the establishment of the international organization in 1946, as America was one of the founding countries, alongside Saudi Arabia and a few other countries.
In 1984, the United States decided to withdraw from UNESCO; protesting what it called the organization's bias towards communist ideology during the height of the Cold War (the first shot!).
In 2003, the United States rejoined UNESCO.
In 2017, the United States withdrew from UNESCO again; protesting what it described as the organization's bias against Israel, following the famous 2011 vote to make Palestine a full member state of the organization (the second shot!).
On July 25, 2023, the United States rejoined UNESCO.”
And I concluded the introduction of that article with a question:
“When will the (third shot) be between the partners?!”
I did not expect the answer to my question to come so quickly, as on July 22, 2025, the U.S. administration announced the decision to withdraw the United States from UNESCO, even before completing two years since its last return.
So, with this new decision, America has issued three shots at UNESCO; will this separation be irreversible?!
***
Why these three shots?
Each time the United States announces a reason, or reasons, for leaving the international organization: bias against American interests, administrative confusion, financial corruption, bias against Israel, bias towards China.
In reality, the true reason for the repeated withdrawals is none of these reasons; accusing any international organization of being biased towards a particular issue or side is a distortion of a clear fact that the member states of the organization—any organization—are the ones who create its positions by putting forward draft resolutions, discussing them publicly, voting on them, and then adopting them. The alleged bias is the bias of the majority against the minority during voting. This is the backbone of the ethics of democracy that the West promotes around the world.
The real reason for the repeated American withdrawal from UNESCO is that it is an organization free from the veto power that gives a superpower the absolute freedom to overturn a decision voted on by all the countries of the world, or blocs of the world, as happens in the Security Council from time to time!
In other words, the “democratic” United States does not want international organizations to be democratic and treat member states equally.
In short, the United States practices its democracy within American territory, and for the American people only. As for outside American soil, it practices a policy of absolute one-sided opinion.
***
Some justify the American position on international organizations, particularly UNESCO, by claiming that it pays the largest share of the organization's budget (22%), as if it has the right to dominate the organization's positions and decisions because of that.
The truth is that this justification is unacceptable; what the United States pays is not a voluntary donation that it bestows upon the organization, but rather part of the mandatory contribution that member states in any organization must pay without any favor. The contribution amount for each country is determined based on a standardized mathematical equation that considers the country’s gross domestic product, per capita income, foreign trade volume, and other varying factors. This is primarily derived from the scale of the assessed contributions in the United Nations, with some adjustments.
It is worth noting that UNESCO's administration became aware during the previous withdrawal of this danger regarding the budget decrease, so it created alternative funding sources for the organization's budget, allowing it to reduce the United States' share of the mandatory contribution from 22% to only 8%, which means reducing UNESCO's loss from the American withdrawal, while global changes increase the loss for the United States, withdrawal after withdrawal!
***
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 (just before the successful vote to make Palestine a member state in UNESCO), Mr. David Killion, the U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO, visited me in my office at the organization. He came to ask me to intervene with the Palestinian delegation to request the withdrawal of the recognition draft resolution before voting on it (within just 15 days), and when he found no response from me, he said:
“If the resolution is indeed adopted, the United States will announce its withdrawal from the organization or freeze its financial contribution to it, and we do not want to be forced to do that!”
I replied: “The withdrawal of an influential country like the United States or freezing its contribution will disturb us and harm the organization. However, it would also be harmful for the organization to have its decisions held hostage to the moods of the countries with the largest shares in its budget. Equality among the influence of member states in the decisions of international agencies is what distinguishes them from the Security Council, which is controlled by the veto of the major powers.” (I detailed the full bilateral meeting in my book: Diplomatic Struggle 2018).
The American withdrawal from the organization has become financially harmful, to some extent... and morally beneficial, to a large extent.
“The relationship between the United States and UNESCO began with the establishment of the international organization in 1946, as America was one of the founding countries, alongside Saudi Arabia and a few other countries.
In 1984, the United States decided to withdraw from UNESCO; protesting what it called the organization's bias towards communist ideology during the height of the Cold War (the first shot!).
In 2003, the United States rejoined UNESCO.
In 2017, the United States withdrew from UNESCO again; protesting what it described as the organization's bias against Israel, following the famous 2011 vote to make Palestine a full member state of the organization (the second shot!).
On July 25, 2023, the United States rejoined UNESCO.”
And I concluded the introduction of that article with a question:
“When will the (third shot) be between the partners?!”
I did not expect the answer to my question to come so quickly, as on July 22, 2025, the U.S. administration announced the decision to withdraw the United States from UNESCO, even before completing two years since its last return.
So, with this new decision, America has issued three shots at UNESCO; will this separation be irreversible?!
***
Why these three shots?
Each time the United States announces a reason, or reasons, for leaving the international organization: bias against American interests, administrative confusion, financial corruption, bias against Israel, bias towards China.
In reality, the true reason for the repeated withdrawals is none of these reasons; accusing any international organization of being biased towards a particular issue or side is a distortion of a clear fact that the member states of the organization—any organization—are the ones who create its positions by putting forward draft resolutions, discussing them publicly, voting on them, and then adopting them. The alleged bias is the bias of the majority against the minority during voting. This is the backbone of the ethics of democracy that the West promotes around the world.
The real reason for the repeated American withdrawal from UNESCO is that it is an organization free from the veto power that gives a superpower the absolute freedom to overturn a decision voted on by all the countries of the world, or blocs of the world, as happens in the Security Council from time to time!
In other words, the “democratic” United States does not want international organizations to be democratic and treat member states equally.
In short, the United States practices its democracy within American territory, and for the American people only. As for outside American soil, it practices a policy of absolute one-sided opinion.
***
Some justify the American position on international organizations, particularly UNESCO, by claiming that it pays the largest share of the organization's budget (22%), as if it has the right to dominate the organization's positions and decisions because of that.
The truth is that this justification is unacceptable; what the United States pays is not a voluntary donation that it bestows upon the organization, but rather part of the mandatory contribution that member states in any organization must pay without any favor. The contribution amount for each country is determined based on a standardized mathematical equation that considers the country’s gross domestic product, per capita income, foreign trade volume, and other varying factors. This is primarily derived from the scale of the assessed contributions in the United Nations, with some adjustments.
It is worth noting that UNESCO's administration became aware during the previous withdrawal of this danger regarding the budget decrease, so it created alternative funding sources for the organization's budget, allowing it to reduce the United States' share of the mandatory contribution from 22% to only 8%, which means reducing UNESCO's loss from the American withdrawal, while global changes increase the loss for the United States, withdrawal after withdrawal!
***
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 (just before the successful vote to make Palestine a member state in UNESCO), Mr. David Killion, the U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO, visited me in my office at the organization. He came to ask me to intervene with the Palestinian delegation to request the withdrawal of the recognition draft resolution before voting on it (within just 15 days), and when he found no response from me, he said:
“If the resolution is indeed adopted, the United States will announce its withdrawal from the organization or freeze its financial contribution to it, and we do not want to be forced to do that!”
I replied: “The withdrawal of an influential country like the United States or freezing its contribution will disturb us and harm the organization. However, it would also be harmful for the organization to have its decisions held hostage to the moods of the countries with the largest shares in its budget. Equality among the influence of member states in the decisions of international agencies is what distinguishes them from the Security Council, which is controlled by the veto of the major powers.” (I detailed the full bilateral meeting in my book: Diplomatic Struggle 2018).
The American withdrawal from the organization has become financially harmful, to some extent... and morally beneficial, to a large extent.
