Agency Report
WASHINGTON, D.C.
In a move rekindling diplomatic tensions, the United States has officially withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), citing longstanding concerns over the agency’s alleged bias against Israel and what Washington termed its promotion of “divisive” global agendas.
Announcing the decision on Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said that continued US participation in UNESCO “is not in the national interest of the United States,” accusing the body of “advancing globalist ideological causes” at odds with American foreign policy priorities.
This marks the second time in under a decade that the US has left UNESCO. Former President Donald Trump withdrew the country in 2017 during his first term, citing similar grievances. President Joe Biden later reversed that decision and rejoined the organisation in 2023. The latest departure, under a renewed Republican administration, signals a return to nationalist foreign policy and a distancing from multilateral global institutions.
“Anti-Israel Rhetoric” and the Palestine Question
Central to Washington’s renewed disengagement is UNESCO’s 2011 decision to admit Palestine as a full member state — a move the US has consistently opposed. Bruce stated that this admission “contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organisation,” and runs contrary to established US foreign policy.
“UNESCO’s decision to admit the ‘State of Palestine’ as a member state is highly problematic, and it undermines efforts toward a negotiated two-state solution,” she added, echoing a line of argument frequently used by successive US administrations wary of recognising Palestinian statehood outside of direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
Culture, Heritage, and Politics
UNESCO is perhaps best known for its stewardship of World Heritage Sites — a prestigious list of cultural and environmental landmarks ranging from the Great Wall of China and the Pyramids of Egypt to the Galápagos Islands and the Acropolis of Athens.
However, the organisation has also drawn scrutiny for taking positions on cultural and educational matters that critics in Washington view as politically charged. Bruce accused the agency of placing undue focus on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which she described as “a globalist, ideological agenda” that extends beyond the agency’s original mandate.
Critics of the US withdrawal argue that Washington’s exit weakens its influence within an institution shaping global cultural and educational standards. Supporters, however, see the decision as a necessary stance against what they perceive as an anti-American and anti-Israeli drift within the UN system.
A History of Fractured Relations
The US-UNESCO relationship has long been marked by friction. President Ronald Reagan first withdrew the US from the body in 1984, denouncing it as corrupt and aligned with Soviet interests during the Cold War. Washington returned in 2003 under President George W. Bush, seeking to re-engage with multilateral diplomacy post-9/11.
The Trump administration’s 2017 withdrawal was met with international concern, but UNESCO continued its work, particularly on heritage preservation and global education initiatives. Under Biden, US membership was restored with an emphasis on restoring international cooperation and global standing.
With this latest withdrawal, the US once again cedes its seat at the UNESCO table — a decision likely to inflame diplomatic rifts and raise questions about America’s long-term commitment to global cooperation on culture, science, and education.
Global Reactions Expected
While UNESCO has yet to issue an official response, diplomatic sources within the organisation described the decision as “disappointing, but not unexpected.” Several European and African member states are reportedly preparing to issue joint statements reaffirming their support for UNESCO’s mission and urging the US to reconsider its stance.
As global challenges from climate change to cultural preservation intensify, the absence of the US — one of UNESCO’s founding members and a significant contributor to its budget — could complicate ongoing initiatives and create room for other global powers, notably China, to increase their influence within the organisation.
In the increasingly multipolar world order, America’s retreat from multilateral institutions sends a strong — and controversial — signal: that under its current leadership, the United States is once again prioritising unilateralism over global consensus.
(AFP)