Trump pulls US out of UN cultural agency UNESCO for second time
The withdrawal from the Paris-based agency, which was founded after World War Two to promote peace through international cooperation in education, science, and culture, will take effect on December 31, 2026.
'President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from UNESCO – which supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November,' White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.
The State Department said remaining in UNESCO was not in the national interest, accusing it of having 'a globalist, ideological agenda for international development at odds with our America First foreign policy'.
UNESCO chief Audrey Azoulay said she deeply regretted Trump's decision, but that it was 'expected, and UNESCO has prepared for it'.
The agency had diversified its sources of funding, receiving only about 8% of its budget from Washington, she said.
French President Emmanuel Macron wrote on X: 'Unwavering support for UNESCO, universal protector of science, the ocean, education, culture, and world heritage.'
'The withdrawal of the United States will not weaken our commitment to those who are fighting this battle.'
UNESCO was one of several international bodies Trump withdrew from during his first term, along with the World Health Organization, the Paris Agreement global climate change accord and the U.N. Human Rights Council. During his second term, he has largely reinstated those steps.
UNESCO officials said the U.S. withdrawal would have some limited impact on programs the United States was financing.
Tensions?
Israel welcomed the U.S. decision to quit UNESCO.
The U.S. State Department said one of the reasons for the withdrawal was UNESCO's decision to admit Palestine as a member state, which was 'contrary to U.S. policy and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization.'
UNESCO officials said all relevant agency statements had been agreed with both Israel and the Palestinians over the past eight years.
'The reasons put forward by the United States to withdraw from the Organization are the same as seven years ago even though the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism,' Azoulay said.
'These claims also contradict the reality of UNESCO's efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism.'
Diplomats said it was felt at UNESCO that the withdrawal was inevitable for political reasons, given that Biden had brought the U.S. back and had promised to repay arrears from the first time Trump pulled out.
UNESCO, whose full name is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, is best known for designating World Heritage Sites, including the Grand Canyon in the United States and the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria.
The United States initially joined UNESCO at its founding in 1945 but withdrew for the first time in 1984 in protest against alleged financial mismanagement and perceived anti-U.S. bias, returning in 2003 under President George W. Bush, who said the agency had undertaken needed reforms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
25 minutes ago
- Business Recorder
France will recognise State of Palestine: Macron
PARIS: France will recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September, President Emmanuel Macron announced on Thursday. 'True to its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine. I will make a formal announcement at the United Nations General Assembly in September,' the French head of state wrote on X and Instagram. Including France, Palestinian statehood is now recognised by 142 countries, according to an AFP tally, though Israel and the United States strongly oppose recognition. Hamas says France plan to recognise Palestinian state 'important step' France would be the most significant European power to recognise a Palestinian state. 'The urgent priority today is to end the war in Gaza and rescue the civilian population,' Macron wrote. 'We must finally build the State of Palestine, ensure its viability and enable it, by accepting its demilitarisation and fully recognising Israel, to contribute to the security of all in the Middle East.'
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
How the attack on Iran has damaged NPT
The writer is an academic and researcher. He is also the author of Development, Poverty, and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge Listen to article Rather than helping to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, the Israel-initiated 12-day war with Iran, which the US also joined, has seriously damaged the longstanding Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT has thus far helped prevent 191 countries from joining the dangerous race to build nuclear arsenals, but the underlying rationale of this treaty has now been undermined. The UN formulated the NPT in the late 1960s to help avert the spread of nuclear weapons and simultaneously allow countries to harness the power of nuclear fissions. Iran signed the NPT in 1968, becoming one of its original members. While Iran has other sources of energy, it wants to reduce reliance on fast-depleting oil and gas reserves. Being able to harness the potential of nuclear energy has also become a matter of national pride for the ostracised state. Western, and other Middle Eastern powers, however, have been very suspicious of Iran's desire to harness nuclear power, fearing that its illiberal regime will use this knowhow to build a covert nuclear weapons program. Iran has submitted to IAEA inspections, despite being heavily sanctioned. The IAEA has suspected Iran to be in non-compliance a few times. However, Iran's trouble with the IAEA has arisen amidst a persistent Israeli shadow campaign to disrupt Iran's nuclear programme. The April 2021 attack on the Natanz enrichment facility, widely attributed to Israel, damaged underground centrifuge halls and disrupted Iran's enrichment timeline. Earlier incidents included the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack and the targeted assassinations of key Iranian nuclear scientists. After years of negotiations, Iran did agree to a nuclear deal with the US in 2015, which aimed to drastically limit Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. However, in 2018, the first Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from this deal, and reimposed harsh sanctions. After the Israel-US attacks on Iran this past month, Tehran has now suspended cooperation with IAEA. If Iran withdraws from NPT, it would not be legally prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons, nor would it be compelled to accept international monitoring. Iran has not been an ideal NPT member state. Its intentional opacity, its ambitious ballistic missile programme and its use of regional proxies have been legitimate causes of international concern. However, Iran is justified in claiming that the rules-based international order is selectively applied. Despite possessing dozens of nuclear warheads, Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity whereby it refuses to confirm or deny its arsenal. Yet, Israel enjoys immense support and aid from the US and European powers, despite its hostilities within the occupied territories, and in the broader neighborhood. This stands in stark contrast to the transparency demanded of Iran. The Israel-US attacks on Iran have damaged the NPT's credibility, which will have implications that reverberate far beyond Iran. The NPT is now widely perceived as failing to protect its signatories, which is increasing the risk of it losing legitimacy altogether. Other states might question whether their own restraint is worthwhile, especially if regional rivals are armed or shielded by powerful allies. For such states, owning nuclear weapons may seem a much more attractive option to help them avert external threats. Even the repressive and otherwise ostracised regime in North Korea has become immune to external aggression due to its nuclear capabilities. Conversely, Ukraine dismantled its Soviet-era arsenal in 1994 in exchange for security guarantees from the UNSC and the results of that are evident in the current aggression by Russia. Lasting proliferation compliance cannot be coerced. It must be fostered through credible diplomacy backed by robust verification mechanisms. Iran needs to be brought back to the negotiating table, and Israel must be restrained from further misadventures against Iran in the name of making the world a safer place, when in effect its actions produce the opposite impact.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
ICJ's climate ruling
Listen to article The International Court of Justice's landmark advisory opinion that states are obligated under international law to tackle climate change is a seismic shift in the global fight against climate catastrophe. By unequivocally declaring that states failing to curb fossil fuels and protect the climate system commit an "internationally wrongful act", the world's highest court has transformed moral rhetoric into legal obligation. For vulnerable nations, the ruling is a vindication of their long-running complaint that developed countries owe the rest of the world for causing the climate crisis. The ICJ opens the door for affected states to seek restitution, compensation, and restoration of their ecosystems. While proving direct causality remains complex, the court insists it is not impossible. The opinion also explicitly names fossil fuel subsidies, exploration licences and corporate deregulation as potential violations, making the transition to renewable energy a requirement, rather than an optional policy. The court also notes that "a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights", which means that, at least in theory, countries that fail to address climate change are human rights violators. Unfortunately, any law is only as strong as its enforcement mechanism, even more so for international law, where violators such as the US and Israel routinely walk out of treaties, rather than accept adverse decisions. Even before the US withdrew from most climate-related agreements under President Trump, it had long disregarded international laws that conflicted with "American interests", whether related to climate, conflict, or commerce. Still, at the bare minimum, the non-binding opinion should push the EU and countries that claim to hold human rights in high esteem into increasing their investment in climate change mitigation, while strengthening the case for some form of reparations, whether direct cash transfers or some form of preferential treatment for the worst-hit countries.
