ShareThis Page

U.N. Watch: Adieu to UNESCO

| Sunday, Nov. 5, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

For all its anti-Israel declarations and screeds, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been the diseased limb of a wobbly tree in serious need of pruning. America's announced withdrawal, effective Dec. 31, 2018, was inevitable.

But it remains questionable why the Trump administration would want to retain “non-member observer” status with such a sullied U.N. agency. The U.S. originally left UNESCO back in the 1980s but apparently decided to give it another chance in 2003, Fox News reports. Then in 2011, the U.S. cut off UNESCO's funding when it accepted the “state” of Palestine as a member.

Writing for The Washington Post, Jared Genser, a lawyer and founder of Freedom Now, makes a valid case for dumping UNESCO:

• UNESCO isn't terribly concerned from whence its money comes, even when its science prize is funded by the despot of Equatorial Guinea, President Teodoro Obiang Nguema.

• UNESCO in 2012 added to its “Memory of the World” program a collection of works from Che Guevara, the Marxist revolutionary who stood before the U.N. General Assembly in 1964 and declared, “Yes, we have executed people; we are executing people and shall continue to execute people as long as it is necessary.”

• And UNESCO this summer piled on with its latest Israel insult, discounting any historical Jewish connections to Jerusalem.

Failing to redeem itself in America's eyes, ultimately UNESCO had to go.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me