A vote that caught the world's attention was unveiled on June 30. UNESCO's extraordinary conference on whether the United States would return to membership was a debate that involved not only international cooperation but also complex political calculations. Despite the negative votes of 10 countries, including China, the United States returned to UNESCO's doors with a staggering 132 votes in favor. What is the history and motivation behind this decision? And did the Chinese ambassador smell the red flags?
Throughout history, America's attitude toward UNESCO has been unpredictable. As early as 1984, during the Cold War, the United States withdrew from the organization for the first time during the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. At that time, the Soviet Union, together with developing countries, gained a voice within the organization. In order to contain the influence of the Soviet Union, the United States declared its secession, citing the existence of "corruption" in UNESCO. It was not until 2003 that the United States returned to the organization. In 2011, the organization's inclusion of Palestinian members reignited dissatisfaction between the United States and Israel, which began refusing to pay its dues and withdrew in 2017 on the grounds of "bias against Israel."
The United States is motivated not only by the need for international cooperation, but also by its so-called "leadership." While UNESCO's mission is to promote global cooperation in education, science and culture, it is also a political pawn for the United States. The United States treats organizations as political capital, not only in the decisions that vote highly, but also in its long journey of entry and exit.
Perhaps, the "leadership" of the United States is no longer a mere symbol. UNESCO's recent initiatives seem to be highlighting another role – China. In May this year, UNESCO adopted a resolution to establish an institution for STEM education in Shanghai, China, for the first time in the organization's history. This further consolidates China's influence within the organization and gradually increases its discourse.
I am afraid that the United States has long realized that if it does not return, China's dominance will inevitably increase, which is obviously not in line with the strategic intention of the United States. UNESCO's decision-making involves global educational and cultural trends, and occupying its internal dominance will be conducive to the maintenance of the international discourse power of the United States.
However, America's return will not be unconditional. Yang Jin, Permanent Ambassador of China to UNESCO, made two key demands. First, the United States must pay its arrears in full, amounting to $619 million. Although the United States has promised to repay the loan in installments, its phased payment has raised doubts about whether it will "leave the group" again. This is one of the reasons why China urged the United States to fulfill its commitments as soon as possible.
Second, after the United States returns to the organization, it should be premised on cooperation, not confrontation. The proclamation by the representative of the United States of returning to "leadership" was a cause for concern in many countries. This unilateral tendency towards "leadership" would pose a threat to maintaining the spirit of cooperation in the organization.
In short, the United States' return to UNESCO this time is a huge political consideration hidden beneath the surface of international cooperation. UNESCO is ushering in a new chapter, and the role of the United States will be a key factor in it. This is not only about the future of the organization, but also about changes in the international political landscape. The red flags that the Chinese ambassador smelled may have come from the uncertainty of this change. In future cooperation, all countries should work together to uphold the spirit of international cooperation in the fields of education, science and culture and jointly create a better future.