The balcony press gallery in UNESCO’s cavernous, flag-bedecked
main conference hall was only half full when I arrived Monday. The
usual speeches His Excellencies the Permanent Representatives made
praising its splendid, nay, heroic, efforts to build a culture of
peace and brotherly love throughout the known universe droned on,
barely audible above the noise of private conversations among the
hundreds of indifferent delegates.
Independent-minded Estonia warned that the committee that
decides which of the planet’s wonders will be designated a World
Heritage Site — UNESCO’s most high-profile, best-known activity —
was becoming dangerously politicized? No one noticed. Vigilant
Australia said the organization should tighten up its finances and
cut spending in line with the new austerity policy of UN Secretary
General Ban Ki-Moon? Whatever.
But as the hour drew closer for the 36th General
Conference to vote on admission of Palestine as a full-fledged
member, press attendance grew to overflowing. A gentleman of Middle
Eastern aspect (this is not profiling!) bustled in
importantly and seated himself next to me. He was just in time to
hear, and loudly applaud, the Palestinian “foreign
minister,” Riad al-Malki, gargle a vociferous plea for admission.
Then began the roll call, in alphabetical order according to the
French spelling of each member country’s name, for the vote. The
hall grew quiet, the atmosphere palpably tense with
expectation.
It soon became clear that it would be, as they say in
Washington, a vote along party lines. In the case of UNESCO, this
usually means pro- or anti-America. Africa? Solidly in favor. South
America, the Middle East? Ditto. Russia, China? Of course. But a
ripple of surprise and scattered partisan applause swept through
the hall when usually sensible Austria voted in favor. The
dithering British abstained, along with the cautious Swiss, but
Ireland provided another much applauded surprise by voting yes. In
an attempt to regain control of an assembly that was beginning to
resemble the excited crowd at a soccer match, the conference
president repeatedly called for calm, reminding delegates that it
was supposed to be a solemn vote on an important matter. But by
this time the gleeful delegates, sensing victory, were having too
much fun.
There was a sprinkling of moans or boos when Germany,
Holland, and the U.S. voted against. The event everyone was waiting
for was France, which had abstained during the UNESCO Executive
Council meeting on October 7 that decided the Palestinian request
was admissible. Then, France considered that admission was
premature, echoing the United States’ position. Thus the hall
erupted in thunderous, prolonged applause and cheering when
France’s representative manfully answered oui to the roll
call. The character next to me, jumping up and down in his seat,
must have hurt his beefy hands beating them so hard.
One thrilled delegate screamed “Long live Palestine!”
in French.
France’s foreign ministry later tried to justify the
turnaround. “We had to assume our responsibilities and deal with
the fundamentals of the question,” it explained, whatever that
meant. In any case, France’s backing for Palestine is old news.
Since the days of Charles de Gaulle, France has never pretended to
be a friend of Israel. Former President Jacques Chirac flaunted his
good relations with Yassir Arafat. It has long presented itself as
being the one European country that the Arab world could count on.
The temptation was irresistible to consolidate all that while
simultaneously strutting its independence from American foreign
policy. (The Quai d’Orsay also said it was trying to avoid a lack
of European unity on the question. A ludicrous notion, given that
its good European Union neighbors Germany and Holland voted against
the admission.)
An unstated reason for France’s good will gesture to the
Palestinians was possibly concern over its own domestic
tranquility. With 10 percent of France now Muslim, its foreign
policy is partly hostage to domestic Islamists quick to take
violent offense in the sordid Paris suburbs. If that was the case,
currying favor didn’t work. Tuesday night the Paris offices of a
weekly satirical paper, Charlie Hebdo, were destroyed by
two Molotov cocktails. Its online edition was pirated and the home
page replaced by Islamic messages and a photo of Mecca. Its
offense: publishing a funny caricature of the Prophet
Muhammad on the cover, and irreverent articles about
Islamists taking power in Tunisia and the probability of sharia
Islamic law in post-Gaddafi Libya.
In all, the farcical UNESCO spectacle this week produced
more losers than winners, something the organization has proven
itself adept at over the years.
The fragile façade of European unity was shattered once
again. The European Union, which wants the world to think of it as
a political entity worthy of being taken seriously, had no position
on the question. As usual when the chips are down, each EU member
took off in the direction it considered in its own best interests.
This, despite the EU’s making a show two years ago of creating the
simulacrum of a foreign ministry, a High
Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
For the Palestinians themselves, ‘twas a famous victory
that they may come to regret. The peace process will suffer:
Israeli retaliation was immediate, Tel Aviv vowing to accelerate
construction of more homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and
suspend transfer payments the Palestinian Authority uses to pay its
civil servants. It is unlikely to grant further negotiating
concessions to the PA, and can be expected to crack down harder on
Hamas. The Palestinian ploy, a transparent end run for admission to
the UN as a legitimate state, may also backfire with unintended
consequences when its application for full membership
is considered by the Security Council later this month.
The biggest cost will be to UNESCO itself. The financial
penalties — losing the annual $70 million U.S. contribution, over
one-fifth of its operating budget, along with those of Israel and
possibly Canada — are just the most obvious ones it will pay.
Perhaps worse is that its clumsy politicization was
once again on full view. It inevitably recalled the bad old days
when it allowed itself to become a Cold War battlefield, flagrantly
corrupt and politicized, an anti-American tool of the hostile
Soviet bloc and the envious, resentful Third World. This was the
root cause of Ronald Reagan’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from
the organization in 1984.
UNESCO did make an effort at reform in the 1990s,
abandoning its vicious condemnation of Western culture and
“American imperialism.” It also dropped its campaign for a
media-muzzling “New World Information and Communication Order.”
George Bush decided to rejoin it in 2003 with the hope that it
would be useful to America’s security following the 9/11 attacks.
That turned out to be naïve, given the woeful lack of concrete
results.
Now the frivolous, clearly partisan irresponsibility
displayed this week will again make many observers, in the U.S. and
elsewhere, wonder just how worthwhile the culture palace on the
Seine really is.
