The U.S. faces a challenging decision if the Palestinians successfully establish a workaround towards official recognition, potentially leading to the United States withdrawing all funding from the UN in protest. Experts suggest that this could happen due to the 1990 Public Law 101-246, which restricts funds being allocated to the UN or its specialized agencies if they provide the same status to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as member states. This broad language has caused uncertainty regarding what actions the U.S. would need to take if the PLO gains privileges and powers as a full and recognized UN member.
Elan Carr, the U.S. envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, warned that such a move would violate both the spirit and intent of the UN’s own charter and contradict American law. He also criticized the significant number of non-free democratic countries in the UN, stating that the Islamic and Arab blocs of states hold immense power, and the U.S. continues to experience isolation in UN circles on issues important to the country.
The new draft resolution proposes a “workaround” that would enable the UN General Assembly to grant the Palestinians powers to vote and veto without formal recognition as a full member. However, according to the experts, this proposal would still constitute a violation of the UN charter and contradict American law.
In light of previous incidents such as Hamas’ “pay-to-slay” program, which rewards terrorists who murder Israeli civilians, scholars believe that this move would showcase deceptive approaches towards member states. The U.S. spokesperson announced that America would remain committed to advancing a political solution that creates a pathway to Palestinian statehood and UN membership through direct negotiations.
In 2011, the Obama administration withdrew funding from UNESCO when the organization granted full membership to the Palestinians. As a result, UNESCO was forced to halt job hirings and freeze programs due to the loss of U.S. funding. Brett Schaefer, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, suggested that the U.S. could follow a similar path by completely stopping all funding for the UN and its institutions, which would align with American law.
Cutting funding to the UN would have significant consequences. The U.S. currently contributes approximately a quarter of the UN regular budget and the peacekeeping budget. If the Palestinians join other organizations, then the funding could continue to flow to specific agencies. However, every single one of these specialized agencies would grant membership opportunities to any other member of the UN. Furthermore, Schaefer explained that the Palestinians have already succeeded in gaining entry into certain UN specialized agencies, particularly UNESCO.
The impact of admitting the Palestinians into the UN would raise various issues. Hamas, the official governing party of the Gaza Strip, remains a terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel. Concerns have been raised about admitting such a group into the UN with the privilege and benefits of a member state. Schaefer pointed out that Palestine does not fulfill the qualifications required for membership, and there is no doubt about this.
China has emerged as the second-largest funding source for the UN, accounting for roughly 15% of the regular budget over the last ten years. Other wealthy countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, each contribute approximately 1% to 2% of the UN general budget. If the U.S. ceases funding for the UN, China would gain considerable influence within the organization, in line with U.S. fears.
Schaefer emphasized that if the Palestinians do not join other organizations, then funding could continue flowing to specific agencies. Nevertheless, every single one of these specialized agencies grants membership opportunities to any other member of the UN. Therefore, if they have the votes to enter the UN via this method, then what prevents them from doing the same thing with specialized agencies?
Schaefer additionally highlighted that China tripled its contributions over the past decade to reach around 15% of the regular budget. Other affluent nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, each contribute roughly 1% to 2% of the UN general budget, correspondingly.
Schaefer explained that cutting off funds from the UN would cause significant disruption. He argued that the entirety of the UN’s routine operations would grind to a halt immediately. Although daily tasks could still be carried out, the scale of the UN’s general budget mainly covers personnel expenses and overhead costs.
The U.N.’s general budget primarily pays for personnel expenses and overhead costs. Schaefer predicted that withdrawing funds from the UN would significantly impact its day-to-day activities.
Leave a Reply