The United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
Marjorie Ann Browne
Specialist in International Relations
March 18, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42999
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Summary
Recent international events have renewed congressional interest in the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNESCO is a specialized agency
of the U.N. system that promotes collaboration among its member countries in the fields of
education, natural sciences, social and human sciences, culture, and communications and
information. With an annual budget of approximately $326 million, it supports more than 2,000
staff members working at its headquarters in Paris and 65 field offices and institutes worldwide.
UNESCO activities are funded through a combination of assessed contributions by member states
to its regular budget, and voluntary contributions by member states and organizations.
U.S. Policy
The United States is a member of UNESCO and generally supports the organization’s objectives.
Over the years, however, some U.S. policymakers—particularly Members of Congress—have
expressed strong concern with UNESCO’s politicization and, as some have alleged, lack of
budget discipline and anti-democratic leanings. These concerns led to the United States’ decision
to withdraw from the UNESCO between 1984 and 2003. Since the United States rejoined the
organization, Members of Congress have demonstrated support for UNESCO—appropriating
between $73 million and $84 million in assessed contributions per fiscal year, or about 22% of
UNESCO’s annual regular budget. At the same time, Members have maintained an ongoing
interest in ensuring UNESCO runs as efficiently and effectively as possible, and that its policies
and programs are in line with U.S. priorities.
Palestinian Membership and U.S. Financial Withholding
Since late 2011, UNESCO has received significant U.S. and international attention resulting from
member states’ decision to admit “Palestine” (the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or PLO) as
a member. The Obama Administration and many Members of Congress vehemently opposed this
action, maintaining that Palestinian statehood can only be realized through direct negotiation
between Israelis and Palestinians rather than through membership in U.N. entities.
The United States withheld approximately $80 million in FY2012 funding to UNESCO as
required by two laws enacted in the 1990s that prohibit funding to U.N. entities that admit the
PLO as a member (P.L. 101-246), and grant full membership as a state to any organization or
group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood (P.L. 103-236).
Despite these funding restrictions, the Obama Administration has stated that it does not intend to
withdraw the United States from UNESCO.
Reform
Since UNESCO’s establishment, member states have sought to improve the organization’s
effectiveness through reform. Many observers, including the United States, agree that UNESCO
has successfully implemented various reforms, particularly during the time between the United
States’ decision to withdraw from the organization in 1984 and its return in 2003. At the same
time, many experts argue that the organization needs additional reform. Weaknesses in
UNESCO’s organizational structure and culture, they contend, hinder its ability to fulfill its
mission.
Congressional Research Service

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

The most recent wave of reform activities is driven by the findings of a 2010 Independent
External Evaluation report commissioned by member states. The report recommends changing
some of UNESCO’s management processes, enhancing UNESCO’s field presence, and
strengthening the organization’s governance mechanisms. Ultimately, the full impact of these and
other reform efforts is unclear. Their success—and the success of any future reforms—will likely
depend on how effectively both UNESCO and its member countries follow through on
implementation.
Issues for the 113th Congress
The recent controversy over Palestinian membership—coupled with broad concerns about
spending levels in light of the recent economic downturn—has prompted some policymakers and
observers to review the U.S. relationship with UNESCO. Examples of issues being considered are
described below.
The impact of the U.S. financial withholding on UNESCO’s activities. Many
experts agree that the U.S. withholding will adversely impact the scope and
effectiveness of UNESCO’s programs; however, there are disagreements
regarding the extent of this impact. The full implications of the withholding
remain to be seen and are largely dependent on how long the United States
withholds funds and what fiscal actions, if any, UNESCO takes in response to the
funding decrease.
The effectiveness of the U.S. withholding. Some policymakers argue that the
legislative restrictions prompting the U.S. withholding are no longer relevant or
effective and should be waived. Others, however, contend that waiving the
legislation would undermine U.S. credibility and provide a “green light” for
Palestine to apply for membership in entities across the U.N. system.
UNESCO’s role in U.S. foreign policy. Some critics of UNESCO maintain that
its activities do not reflect U.S. foreign policy interests. Supporters contend that
the organization plays a key role in global issues that the United States views as
strategic priorities, particularly education and science.
Challenges to UNESCO reform. A significant obstacle to UNESCO reform is
governments’ differing views on the organization’s role in the global multilateral
framework. Moreover, each UNESCO member state has its own foreign policy
priorities, political agenda, and perceptions of how the organization should work.
These differences can lead to disagreements on budgeting, programming and, as
most recently demonstrated, membership.
Looking Ahead
A key issue facing the 113th Congress might be the level and extent of future U.S. engagement
with UNESCO. The United States is currently a member of the organization with full voting
rights in the General Conference (UNESCO’s main decision-making body); however, the United
States may lose these rights if it continues to withhold financial contributions. Lack of voting
rights may lead to the United States having minimal influence within the organization. As such,
the United States might choose to remain engaged with UNESCO to the extent possible, or to
withdraw as it did in 1984.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Organization and Structure .............................................................................................................. 2
Funding and Budget ......................................................................................................................... 4
Effectiveness and Reform ................................................................................................................ 5
Politicization Concerns .............................................................................................................. 5
Palestinian Membership ...................................................................................................... 5
Committee Composition ..................................................................................................... 6
Organizational Culture and Priorities ........................................................................................ 7
2010 Independent External Evaluation Report Findings ........................................................... 8
Recent Reform Activities .......................................................................................................... 9
U.S. Policy ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Response to Palestinian Membership ...................................................................................... 11
U.S. Contributions, FY2003 to FY2013 .................................................................................. 12
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 13
Impact of U.S. Withholding on UNESCO’s Activities ............................................................ 13
Effectiveness of Funding Restrictions ..................................................................................... 14
Role in U.S. Foreign Policy ..................................................................................................... 15
Challenges to Reform .............................................................................................................. 15
Looking Ahead ............................................................................................................................... 16

Tables
Table 1. U.S. Contributions to UNESCO: FY2003-FY2012 ......................................................... 12

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 17
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 17

Congressional Research Service

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Introduction
During the past several decades, the United States has had a mixed relationship with the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Most recently, decisions
by some UNESCO member states have led to increased congressional interest in U.S. funding of
and participation in the organization. Established in 1946 in the aftermath of World War II,
UNESCO aims to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among member
states in the fields of education, science, and culture. The organization, which has a specialized
agency relationship with the United Nations, is headquartered in Paris, France, and composed of
195 member states. With an annual budget of about $326 million, its programs and activities
encompass a wide array of issues, including literacy, media and Internet freedom, ocean
management, and environmental and cultural preservation, among others.
The United States played a key role in UNESCO’s establishment and has generally supported the
overall objectives of the organization. At the same time, U.S. policymakers—particularly some
Members of Congress—have expressed concern with UNESCO’s apparent politicization, lack of
budget discipline, and perceived leanings toward anti-democratic countries. These concerns led to
the United States’ withdrawal from UNESCO from 1984 to 2003. Since the United States
rejoined the organization, Members of Congress have demonstrated support for UNESCO—
appropriating about $618.6 million in regular budget contributions and $9.5 million in voluntary
contributions from FY 2004 through FY2011.
In October 2011, UNESCO garnered significant attention from U.S. policymakers when a
majority of member countries decided to admit Palestine as a member. (The decision to pursue
UNESCO membership is part of a broader, ongoing effort by Palestinian Liberation Organization
Chairman and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to achieve membership or non-
member observer state status in various U.N. bodies as a means for achieving recognition of
Palestinian statehood.) As a result of this decision, the United States withheld its contributions to
UNESCO as required under two laws enacted in the 1990s that prohibit funding to U.N. entities
that admit the PLO as a member (P.L. 101-246), or grant full membership as a state to any
organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood
(P.L. 103-236). For FY2012, the United States withheld approximately $80 million, or 22% of the
UNESCO regular budget.
The Obama Administration actively opposes Palestinian membership in UNESCO. It argues that
Palestinian statehood can only be realized through direct negotiation between Israel and
Palestinians, and not through membership in international organizations. At the same time, the
Administration maintains that U.S. participation in UNESCO is in the interest of the United
States and that the government should continue to fund and participate in the organization. In his
FY2013 budget proposal, President Obama requested $78.968 million in assessed contributions
for UNESCO and stated that the Administration intended to work with Congress to “waive” the
funding restrictions. UNESCO critics, however, argue that waiving the laws would undermine
U.S. credibility and encourage the Palestinians to continue to pursue membership in other U.N.
entities. The question of Palestinian membership in other U.N. entities might generate further
Congressional Research Service
1

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

domestic and international attention following the U.N. General Assembly’s decision to grant
Palestine non-member state observer status in November 2012.1
As the debate over U.S. funding of and participation in UNESCO moves forward, Congress may
consider a number of issues, including UNESCO’s role, if any, in U.S. foreign policy, as well as
the organization’s overall effectiveness and reform efforts. It may also consider the long- and
short-term implications, both positive and negative, of withholding funding to UNESCO. More
broadly, policymakers might consider the efficacy of laws restricting funding for U.N. entities
that admit Palestine as a member. A particularly pressing question moving forward may be how, if
at all, the United States will engage with UNESCO if it does not resume financial support to the
organization.
Organization and Structure
UNESCO programs and activities encompass five sectors—education, natural sciences, social
and human sciences, culture, and communication and information. The organization sponsors
international exchanges and meetings in science, education, and other fields; promotes the free
flow of ideas, including media freedom; encourages the
conservation of books, monuments, and works of art; and
Role in the U.N. System2
assists member states in developing educational, scientific,
UNESCO is a specialized agency of the U.N.
and cultural programs. It also provides a mechanism for the
system. Articles 57 and 63 of the U.N. Charter
drafting, adoption, and review of several international
state that specialized agencies are autonomous
conventions and commissions, including the Convention
intergovernmental organizations “having wide
concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
international responsibilities [ ... ] in economic,
social, cultural, educational, health and related

Natural Heritage (often referred to as the World Heritage
fields.”
Convention), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Like other specialized agencies, UNESCO has
Commission (IOC), and the Convention against
its own constitution, governance structure,
Discrimination in Education.3
budget, and programs. It regularly col aborates
with the United Nations and other specialized
More than 2,000 personnel from 170 countries work for
agencies at the intergovernmental level
UNESCO; approximately 870 staff work in the
through regular reporting to and interaction
with the United Nations. Examples of other
organization’s 65 field offices and institutes worldwide.4
U.N. specialized agencies include the World
UNESCO’s governing structure consists of three key
Health Organization, International Labor
mechanisms, described below.
Organization, and Food and Agriculture
Organization.
• The General Conference (GC), composed of
representatives from all member countries, is UNESCO’s primary decision-

1 The General Assembly voted to grant Palestine non-member observer state status by a vote of 138 in favor, 9 against
(including the United States), and 41 abstaining. For more information, see the “Effectiveness and Reform” section.
2 The U.N. system consists of the entities or bodies established by the U.N. Charter, including the United Nations and
its principal organs, subsidiary bodies, committees, and commissions; the separate international intergovernmental
organizations considered specialized agencies by virtue of completing relationship agreements as provided for in
Article 57 of the Charter; and a number of programs and funds established by the U.N. General Assembly under its
authority derived from Article 22 of the Charter. For a complete list of the components of the U.N. System, see chart at
http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/org_chart.shtml.
3 For more information on UNESCO activities and programs, see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/themes/.
4 Examples of UNESCO institutes and centers include the Institute for Statistics and the International Bureau for
Education. For a full list, see http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/where-we-are/institutes-and-centres/.
Congressional Research Service
2

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

making body. It meets every two years to determine the organization’s policies,
programs, and budget. With a few exceptions, GC decisions on important
questions are made by consensus; consequently, approved resolutions are often
not very specific, even those addressing budgetary issues.
• The Executive Board, composed of 58 member state representatives, meets
twice a year and is responsible for implementing the program adopted by the GC.
Members are elected to the Board by the GC for a four-year term. The United
States is currently a member of the Board; its term will expire in 2015.
• The Director-General (DG), currently Irina Bokova of Bulgaria, heads the
UNESCO Secretariat. The DG is appointed to a six-year term by the GC on the
recommendation of the Executive Board. She is charged with preparing the
UNESCO program and budget, making proposals to the GC, creating the
organizational structures of the Secretariat, and appointing staff. The DG can also
play a key role in negotiations regarding budgets, resolutions, and programs.
The Executive Board and GC include various committees composed of member countries that
consider issues related to the functioning of the organization or specific issues related to
education, science, or culture.5
UNESCO maintains relationships with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foundations, the
private sector, and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). More than 350 NGOs and 20
foundations have an official relationship with UNESCO, and many more work with the
organization on specific activities and programs at the local, national, and international level.
UNESCO also works with several hundred private companies and organizations through
traditional philanthropic and sponsorship relationships, as well as strategic partnerships
developed through shared resources and expertise. In addition, it collaborates with more than 80
IGOs, including the European Union (EU) and various multilateral development banks, on
specific programs and projects through formal agreements or ad hoc arrangements.6 UNESCO
also partners and coordinates with other parts of the U.N. system through various system-wide
coordination mechanisms and memoranda of understanding with other U.N. entities.7
UNESCO’s relationships with other organizations are strengthened by National Commissions
established by member governments in their respective countries. The commissions aim to

5 The GC, for example, has a General Committee that steers the work of each GC session, as well as four other
committees that address issues ranging from participant credentials to legal issues. The Executive Board’s three
committees include the Special Committee, which evaluates UNESCO activities; the Committee on Conventions and
Recommendations, which considers the periodic reports of members on the implementation of UNESCO
recommendations and conventions; and the Committee on NGOs, which promotes the input of NGOs on UNESCO’s
work. For more information on the CR Committee, see the “Effectiveness of Funding Restrictions” section.
6 For example, the UNESCO/NGO Collective Consultation on Higher Education, composed of 60 NGOs representing
all areas of the higher education community, acts as a think tank to assist UNESCO in the orientation and
implementation of its higher education programs. In the private sector, UNESCO has worked with L’Oreal to improve
the role of women in science, and Hewlett-Packard to alleviate “brain drain” in southeast Europe. It also works with
IGOs such as the EU to address the teacher gaps in African countries, and the Inter-American Development Bank to
develop World Heritage sites in Peru.
7 U.N. system-wide mechanisms promoting coordination include (1) the Chief Executives Board, a high-level
coordination mechanism, chaired by the Secretary-General, designed to bring together 27 heads of U.N. entities to
approve policy statements on behalf of the United Nations, and (2) the U.N. Development Group, composed of the 32
U.N. entities that address development.
Congressional Research Service
3

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

provide links among UNESCO and NGOs, the private sector, local and national governments,
and the public in each country. Commission members, who are appointed by governments,
provide insight on UNESCO programs, and help implement training programs, studies, public
awareness campaigns, and media outreach. There are currently 198 National Commissions
worldwide, including one in the United States.8
Funding and Budget
UNESCO activities are funded through a combination of assessed contributions by member states
to the regular budget; voluntary contributions by member states, organizations, and others to
special programs; and funds provided by partners such as other U.N. entities, NGOs, and the
private sector. The U.S. share of UNESCO’s regular budget is 22%, the largest among
contributing members. Four countries—the United States, Japan (assessed at 15%), Germany
(8%), and France (6%)—account for more than 50% of the assessed budget.
UNESCO’s budget and cashflow has been significantly affected by member countries’ October
2011 decision to admit Palestine as a member.9 This decision led the United States to withhold its
contributions under two laws enacted in the 1990s that prohibit funding to U.N. entities that admit
the PLO as a member (P.L. 101-246), or that grant full membership as a state to any organization
or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood (P.L. 103-236).10
The UNESCO budget for 2010-2011, which covers two years, was $653 million (about $326.5
million annually).11 For the 2012-2013 time period, the budget initially remained the same at
$653 million. The recent U.S. suspension of contributions, however, left UNESCO with an
immediate shortfall of $72 million through the end of 2011. To cover this gap, as well as a lack of
U.S. funding in the current two-year budget cycle, UNESCO reports that it must reduce the 2012-
2013 budget by 28.9% (or by $188 million).12
Director-General Bokova introduced a number of initiatives to address UNESCO’s ongoing
budget shortfalls, including
• launching an Emergency Multi-Donor Fund for UNESCO Priority Programs and
Reform Initiatives, which accepts financial contributions from countries,
institutions and individuals to cover the gaps left by U.S. withholdings (as of
August 2012, the Fund received $38.7 million, with an additional $27.8 million
in pledges);13

8 The establishment of National Commissions is authorized under Article VII of the UNESCO constitution. For more
information on the U.S. Commission, see the “U.S. Policy” section.
9 See the “Effectiveness and Reform” section for more information on Palestinian membership.
10 For more information on these laws, see the “U.S. Policy” section.
11 In 2011, education accounted for roughly 32% of all UNESCO programs; natural sciences, 21%; social and human
sciences, culture, 13%; and communication and information, 5%. The rest of the budget (22%) addresses
interdisciplinary and other programs. See UNESCO 2011 Annual Report, Annex 1.
12 See (1) UNESCO document 36 C/5, 2012-2013 Approved Programme and Budget, and (2) UNESCO 2011 Annual
Report, Annex 1.
13 UNESCO document 190 EX/34, Financial Situation of the Organization and its Implications for the Implementation
of the 36 C/5, Report by the Director-General on the Cashflow Situation of the Organization,
September 7, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
4

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

• urging member states to support an immediate increase in the organization’s
Working Capital Fund for 2012-2013 from $30 to $65 million (as of May 2012,
$117,000 had been donated to the fund); and
• instituting immediate cost saving measures of $31 million during November and
December 2011 to help offset the shortfall from the U.S. withholding.
Despite these efforts, the DG reports that there is still an “enormous” shortfall, and emphasizes
that fundraising efforts such as the Multi-Donor Fund and Capital Fund are not long-term
solutions to the funding gap.14
Effectiveness and Reform
Many U.S. policymakers generally support UNESCO’s aim of promoting international
collaboration in the fields of education, science, and communication. At the same time, some are
concerned that the organization is not fulfilling its mission as efficiently or effectively as possible.
This section describes concerns expressed by UNESCO critics, including some Members of
Congress, regarding the organization’s alleged politicization and organizational and cultural
weaknesses. It also describes UNESCO’s efforts to address some of these issues through internal
evaluations and reform.
Politicization Concerns
One criticism that UNESCO faces, perhaps more than most U.N. specialized agencies, is
politicization among its membership. Observers contend that in the General Conference (GC) and
Executive Board, governments often focus on subjects unrelated to UNESCO’s mission rather
than issues such as education, science, or improving the organization’s effectiveness. Most
recently, some U.S. policymakers have raised questions and concerns regarding (1) UNESCO’s
decision to admit Palestine as a member, and (2) the composition of UNESCO’s committees.
Palestinian Membership
In October 2011, UNESCO generated significant controversy both domestically and
internationally when its General Conference adopted a resolution admitting Palestine as a
member. (See text box for a brief chronology of Palestinian membership actions.) Some U.S.
officials and observers view this as a political decision that reflects member states’ longstanding
and disproportionate focus on Israel within UNESCO and the U.N. system. Palestinian efforts to
achieve UNESCO membership are part of broader efforts by PLO Chairman and Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to achieve international recognition for Palestinian
statehood. On November 29, 2011, the U.N. General Assembly voted to change Palestine’s
observer status from “observer entity,” to “non- member observer state” by a vote of 138 in favor,
9 against (including the United States), and 41 abstaining.15

14 Steve Erlanger, “Cutoff of U.S. Money Leads UNESCO to Slash Programs and Seek Emergency Aid,” New York
Times
, October 11, 2012.
15 This change in observer status is a largely symbolic act. Although Palestine has the term “state” in its current
designation, it is not a member of the United Nations. As such, it does not have the right to vote or call for a vote in the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

In one of its first acts as a UNESCO member,
“Palestine” and UNESCO Membership
Palestine sought and attained recognition of
the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as a
Under the UNESCO Constitution, membership in the
United Nations can qualify a state for membership in
World Heritage Site and as a World Heritage
UNESCO. However, states that are not members of the
Site in Danger.17 Many policymakers viewed
United Nations—such as “Palestine”—may be admitted
this decision as yet another example of
to UNESCO on the recommendation of the Executive
UNESCO’s bias against Israel. According to
Board, fol owed by a two-thirds majority vote in the
the World Heritage body evaluating the site,
General Conference (GC).
the church had a leaking roof, used
Chronology
inappropriate building materials, and had not
April 27, 1989—The PLO, following its 1988 declaration
been well-maintained in the past 50 years.18
of Palestinian statehood, submitted a request to the
Palestinian officials reportedly said that a vote
Executive Board asking that it be admitted as a UNESCO
to add the church to World Heritage Lists
member. Up to October 2011, the Board and the GC
deferred consideration of the application and referred
would be a vote “in favor of self-
the agenda item to subsequent sessions of the Executive
determination and cultural rights for the
Board and GC.
Palestinian people.”19 Obama Administration
October 5, 2011—The Executive Board, by a rol cal vote
officials opposed Palestinian efforts to add the
of 40 in favor, 4 against, and 14 abstaining, decided to
church to World Heritage lists, and were
recommend that the General Conference admit Palestine
“profoundly disappointed” with the World
as a UNESCO member.16
Heritage Committee’s decision to inscribe the
October 31, 2011—The UNESCO GC, by a vote of 107
site. U.S. officials specifically noted that
in favor, 14 against, and 52 abstaining, adopted a
inscription on the Danger List is reserved only
resolution admitting Palestine as a member.
“for extreme cases, such as when a site is
November 23, 2011—Effective date of Palestinian
under imminent threat of destruction.”20
membership in UNESCO per receipt of Palestine’s
notification of its signature and ratification of the
UNESCO Constitution.
Committee Composition
Some U.S. policymakers have raised concerns regarding the membership of UNESCO
committees. Specifically, the Executive Board’s Committee on Conventions and

(...continued)
General Assembly. Palestine has maintained many of the capacities it had as an observer entity—including
participation in Assembly debates and the ability to co-sponsor draft resolutions and decisions related to proceedings on
Palestinian and Middle East issues. For more information, see CRS Report RL34074, The Palestinians: Background
and U.S. Relations
, by Jim Zanotti.
16 On September 23, 2011, several weeks prior to the UNESCO Executive Board’s consideration of Palestinian
membership, Abbas submitted to the U.N. Secretary-General an application for U.N. membership to bring about a
Security Council vote on whether to recommend membership. The Council is unlikely to consider Palestinian
membership, with the Obama Administration stating that it would veto a Council resolution recommending such
membership.
17 Inclusion on the World Heritage List means that a site should be protected and preserved by the global community;
inclusion on the Danger List means that a site is particularly threatened. For background information on World
Heritage processes, see archived CRS Report R40164, The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional
Issues
, by Luisa Blanchfield.
18 Advisory Body Evaluation No. 1433, “Church of the Nativity, Bethlehem (Palestine),” UNESCO World Heritage
Convention documents, at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1433/documents/.
19 Isabel Kershner, “UNESCO Adds Nativity Church in Bethlehem to Heritage List,” New York Times, June 29, 2012.
20 The Administration emphasized that in the last 40 years only four other sites have been added to the Danger List.
Statement by U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO David Killion on the Emergency Inscription of the Church of the Nativity
as a World Heritage Site, U.S. Mission to UNESCO, June 29, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
6

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Recommendations (CR), which considers the periodic reports of members on the implementation
of UNESCO recommendations and conventions, has been criticized by some governments,
including the United States, for Syria’s membership. Many are concerned that human rights
abuses by the Syrian government impact the credibility of the CR committee, which is charged
with, among other things, assessing countries’ compliance with conventions that address human
rights issues. In January 2012, the United States and other like-minded countries led an
unsuccessful diplomatic effort to remove Syria from the committee. U.S. Permanent Ambassador
to UNESCO David Killion stated, “We should not allow the Syrian regime to stand as a judge of
other countries’ human rights record while it systematically violates the human rights of its
citizens.”21 CR committee members, who are elected by and from within the Executive Board,
serve two-year terms. Syria remains a member of the CR committee, and its term is set to expire
in 2014.
Organizational Culture and Priorities
Some experts contend that UNESCO’s organizational structure and culture hinder its ability to
fulfill its objectives. For example, many are concerned that UNESCO’s hiring and promotion
practices have little transparency and lack consistent implementation. Critics maintain that hiring
practices appear to favor geographic representation and gender balance with too little
consideration of merit. They emphasize that issues such as employee progress and managerial
accountability should be addressed to “avoid [staff] frustration” that may affect UNESCO’s
effectiveness.22 In addition, critics assert that UNESCO’s governance structure is “unwieldy,”
with weeks-long meetings that encourage long debates focused on administrative rather than
substantive matters and time-consuming reporting requirements for Secretariat staff.23 Some have
also expressed concern with what has been called an “inward-oriented” and risk-averse culture, as
well as lack of collaboration and communication within and among UNESCO sectors.24
Additionally, a number of experts have emphasized the apparent imbalance between UNESCO’s
administrative and programmatic costs. The 2012-2013 biennium budget was $653 million (about
$327 million per year); however, only $57.7 million (about 17%) of that yearly budget was
allocated for the education sector, with staff costs accounting for nearly $32 million, leaving only
about $25 million for actual education activities and programs.25 This problem has been
exacerbated over the years as UNESCO’s real budget has decreased but staffing costs have
increased, which has reduced available funding for UNESCO programs.26

21 U.S. Mission to UNESCO Press Release, “Statement on Syria and the CRR,” January 2012.
22 UNESCO document 190 EX/22, Report of the Joint Inspection Unit on the Management and Administration of
UNESCO,
August 13, 2012.
23 Nicholas Burnett, “UNESCO Education: Political or Technical? Reflections on Recent Personal Experience,”
International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 31, 2011, pp. 315-318.
24 Aaron Benavot, “Imagining a Transformed UNESCO with Learning at its Core,” International Journal of
Educational Development
, Vol. 31, 2011, pp. 558-561.
25 This does not include extrabudgetary funding, which often supports a range of education programs earmarked by
donors.
26 UNESCO document 36 C/5, Approved Programme and Budget 2012-2013.
Congressional Research Service
7

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

2010 Independent External Evaluation Report Findings
Some of the aforementioned concerns were reflected in an August 2010 UNESCO Independent
External Evaluation (IEE) report commissioned by the Executive Board and GC.27 The report
found that while UNESCO is valued and its achievements are recognized by many, the
organization is “unevenly” meeting its mandate. Evaluators noted that the organization’s broad
mission is “permissive,” meaning that UNESCO could claim to play a role in any worldwide
issue—leading to instances of programmatic incoherence and general lack of focus. Moreover,
while UNESCO has sought to concentrate or improve the focus in larger program areas and
across sectors, these efforts have been undermined by “weak incentives for collaboration, sectoral
budget systems, too many priorities and cross-cutting objectives, and lack of consensus in
governing bodies and in the [UNESCO] Secretariat.”28
Another issue raised in the IEE report was the effectiveness of UNESCO’s field presence. The
report stated that UNESCO field offices are “over-extended, often under-resourced, and poorly
staffed,” and that they might benefit from “a smaller number of more capable and well-resourced
multi-skilled … regional and subregional bureaus.”29 In addition, the report highlighted the
challenge of measuring the effectiveness of UNESCO activities, noting that evidence of
UNESCO’s impact tends to be largely anecdotal. It found that while UNESCO has invested in
results-based management, the “evaluation culture” in the organization is weak, noting that
recommendations stemming from evaluations and assessment were not fully implemented. At the
same time, the report acknowledged that the broad and often intangible nature of UNESCO’s
mission makes it difficult to measure the organization’s impact. It also emphasizes that
evaluations and assessments may be complex and costly.
To address these and other issues, the report recommended five broad “strategic directions” for
UNESCO:
Focus—improving the organization’s focus to address challenges consistent with
its mandate;
Field—positioning UNESCO closer to the field to be closer to country needs,
resources, and partners;
United Nations—strengthening participation in the U.N. system;
Governance—strengthening governance mechanisms; and
Partnership—developing a partnership strategy that improves its relationship
with civil society and the private sector.

27 See UNESCO documents 182 EX/Decision 24 and 35 C/Resolution 102. The evaluation was undertaken by a cross-
regional 11-person team between January and July 2010.
28 The evaluators further note that examples of successful collaboration are often the result of “informal efforts by
committed individuals over institutional barriers to cooperation.” UNESCO document, 185 EX/18, Report on the
Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO, Summary
,” August 30, 2010.
29 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Recent Reform Activities
Over the years, UNESCO member states have sought to improve the organization’s effectiveness
through a range of reform efforts.30 Many observers, including some in the United States, agree
that UNESCO has successfully implemented various reforms, particularly during the time
between the United States’ decision to withdraw from the organization in 1984 and its return in
2003.31 Nevertheless, many experts and policymakers in the international community and the
United States maintain that additional changes are needed to ensure that UNESCO is successful
in achieving its mission.
The most recent wave of reform activities is driven by the strategic directions recommended in
the aforementioned Independent External Evaluation (IEE) report.32 After the report was
published, the Executive Board and GC agreed to 87 “action points,” which are in various states
of implementation.33 UNESCO reports that as of August 2012, 23 of 87 points were completed.34
Completed activities include adjusting the scope, actions, and expected results in future budgeting
and programming cycles; reviewing UNESCO’s partnership agreements with other U.N. entities
and identifying areas for future collaboration; and implementing the first phase of a
decentralization strategy that works to reform field networks in Africa and Arab states by
clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and functions of various UNESCO field offices.35
Separate from IEE-related reforms, member states agreed to a human resources management
strategy for 2011 through 2016 that focuses on
• improving talent management (attracting and retaining talented people committed
to the values of the organization);
• enhancing staff capacity (developing efficient and effective staff capabilities);
and
• creating an enabling work environment (by providing the necessary internal
conditions to support staff commitment and motivation).36

30 For more information on broader U.N. reform efforts, see CRS Report RL33848, United Nations Reform: Issues for
Congress
, by Luisa Blanchfield.
31 In that period, UNESCO adopted a policy of “zero-budget growth,” reduced staff levels, decentralized some staff and
program operations to the field, increased its focus on education programs, and established an Internal Oversight
Service (IOS), which conducts internal audits, evaluations, and investigations. For more information on reforms, see
GAO report 03-565R, Status of Reforms and Budgets of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization,
March 28, 2003; and Karen Mundy, “Educational Multilateralism in a Changing World Order: UNESCO
and the Limits of the Possible,” International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 19, 1999, pp. 27-52.
32 For a list of reforms undertaken prior to the publication of the IEE report, see UNESCO document 186 EX/17, Part
II, Report by the Director General on the Follow-up With Respect to Operational Aspects of the IEE Report, April 18,
2011, pp. 2-3.
33 See UNESCO documents 187 EX/Decision 17, and 36/C Resolution 104.
34 UNESCO document 190 EX/21 Part I, Follow-up to the Independent External Evaluation of UNESCO, Report by the
Director-General
, August 13, 2012. Also see UNESCO document 189 EX/11, February 1, 2012.
35 A full list of the 87 action points is available in UNESCO document 187 EX/17 Part I, Follow-up to the IEE of
UNESCO, Report by the Director-General on Progress in Implementation and Monitoring by the Executive Board
System,
September 2, 2011.
36 For more information on the strategy, see UNESCO document 186 EX/25, April 18, 2011, Report by the Director-
General on the Human Resources Management Strategy.

Congressional Research Service
9

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

UNESCO also continues to participate in broader U.N. reform-related efforts, including system-
wide coherence efforts such as the “Delivering as One” pilot initiative established in eight
countries in 2006 to improve coordination and cooperation among U.N. Country Team members.
The full impact of these recent reform efforts is still unclear. Their overall success—and the
success of any future reform efforts—will largely depend on how effectively both UNESCO and
its member countries follow through on implementation.37
U.S. Policy
The United States was one of the original members of UNESCO and has generally supported the
organization’s overall objectives.38 At the same time, U.S. policymakers, including some
Members of Congress, have been very critical of the organization, leading to the United States’
nearly 20-year withdrawal in 1984, followed by its subsequent decision to rejoin in 2003. (See
text box for more details.)
U.S. Withdrawal: 1984 to 2003
In December 1983, the Secretary of State notified then-Director-General of UNESCO, Amadou-Mahter M’Bow of
Senegal, that the United States would be terminating its membership in the organization, effective in December 1984.
Three key concerns influenced the U.S. decision. The first was UNESCO’s apparent politicization, which included GC
actions that (1) targeted Israel, and (2) shifted the definition of human rights from the western concept of individual
rights to that of “collective peoples’ rights.” The second concern was the organization’s hostility toward the basic
institutions of a free society through its support of activities in international communications, which many western
countries viewed as a threat to freedom of the press. Final y, many were concerned with UNESCO’s lack of
adherence to the U.S.-proposed “zero net program growth” for al international entities, as wel as with apparent
mismanagement problems and high overhead costs under DG M’Bow. In September 2002, President George W.
Bush, in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly, announced that the United States would rejoin UNESCO. The
President stated that the organization had been reformed and that the United States would “participate ful y in
UNESCO’s mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning.”39 The United States officially rejoined in
October 2003.
The United States engages with UNESCO through the U.S. Mission to UNESCO, which is
located in Paris, France, and headed by a U.S. Permanent Representative. Mission staff, along
with temporary staff from U.S. agencies and departments, work with other national delegations
and subject-area experts to further U.S. policy priorities in UNESCO.40 Such priorities include
combating illiteracy, improving water resource management, monitoring climate change,
enhancing tsunami early warning systems, preserving world heritage sites, and promoting free
media worldwide.41 The United States also engages with and supports the U.S. National

37 For a discussion of challenges facing UNESCO reform efforts, see the “Issues for Congress” section.
38 U.S. participation in UNESCO is established under P.L. 79-565, which authorized annual appropriations to the
organization, and directed the President to set up a U.S. National Commission for UNESCO. Between 1946 and 1984,
the United States contributed nearly $458 million to UNESCO in assessed contributions.
39 Statement by President George W. Bush, 57th U.N. General Assembly, September 12, 2002.
40 The Mission supports seven direct-hire positions (composed of foreign and civil service), as well as five local staff
members. Agencies involved in UNESCO activities include the National Park Service, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Army Corps of Engineers.
41 Examples of specific projects include those addressing holocaust education; promoting literacy and education
programs for women and girls; researching seismic activities and earthquake engineering; supporting trade and
vocational schools in Afghanistan; preserving traditional music of the world; and promoting open access to global
maps, among others. These projects were funded primarily through voluntary contributions to UNESCO.
Congressional Research Service
10

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Commission to UNESCO, which includes experts from non-governmental, federal, state, and
local government sectors.42
Response to Palestinian Membership
The United States is currently withholding its voluntary and assessed contributions to UNESCO
due to the General Conference’s October 2011 decision to admit Palestine as a member. As
previously mentioned, two provisions in U.S. law prohibit funding to U.N. entities that admit the
PLO as a member or grant full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not
have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood:43
Section 410 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (P.L. 103-236), which states that the United States shall not make
contributions to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants
full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the
internationally recognized attributes of statehood”; and
Section 414 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990
and 1991 (P.L. 101-246), which states, “No funds authorized to be appropriated
by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any
specialized agencies thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization
the same standing as member states.”
The United States voted against the Executive Board and GC actions that led to Palestine’s
admission as a UNESCO member. Obama Administration officials stated that the GC’s decision
was “regrettable and premature,” and emphasized that the United States “remains steadfast in its
support for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.... [S]uch a state
can only be realized through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.” 44 At the
same time, officials expressed deep commitment to the organization and pledged to find ways to
support and strengthen its work. The State Department reports that since the U.S. withholding, the
U.S. Mission to UNESCO has shifted its focus toward emphasizing the value of U.S. engagement
in the organization and maintaining U.S. influence.45
The United States is a member of the GC with full voting rights.46 The Obama Administration has
stated that it does not intend to withdraw from UNESCO despite the funding restrictions;
however, the United States may lose its voting rights if it continues to withhold financial
contributions. Article IV of the UNESCO constitution states that a member state shall have no
vote in the GC if the total amount of contributions due exceeds the total amount of contributions
payable by it for the current year and the immediately preceding calendar year. Thus, if the

42 The commission is composed of 54 NGO representatives, eight federal government officials, nine state and local
officials, and 14 at-large individuals. More information is available at http://www.state.gov/p/io/unesco/index.htm.
43 The provisions are codified as notes to 22 U.S.C. 287e.
44 U.S. Statement in Explanation of Vote on Draft Resolution 9.1 Regarding Membership for Palestine in UNESCO,
delivered by U.S. Permanent Representative to UNESCO, Ambassador David T. Killion, October 31, 2011.
45 “Office of Inspections, Inspection of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization, Paris, France,” Department of State Office of the Inspector General, Report ISP-I-12-26, May 2012.
46 The United States is a member of various UNESCO governing mechanisms, including the Executive Board; the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) Executive Council, and the International Hydrological Program
(IHP) Intergovernmental Council.
Congressional Research Service
11

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

current U.S. withholding continues, the United States will owe assessments for two consecutive
calendar years (2011 and 2012) in late 2013, and would be ineligible to vote in the GC. As a
result, the United States may lose much of its influence in UNESCO fora. It may then choose to
remain engaged with UNESCO to the extent that it can (while accumulating arrearages), or
withdraw from the organization as it did in 1984.
U.S. Contributions, FY2003 to FY2013
As a member of UNESCO, the United States is assessed to pay 22% of the UNESCO regular
budget, or roughly $80 million a year. This contribution is financed from the Contributions to
International Organizations (CIO) account. The United States also makes voluntary contributions
to selected UNESCO programs—particularly the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
(IOC) and World Heritage Fund—through the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P)
account. (Both the accounts are typically funded through the Department of State, Foreign
Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act.)
As demonstrated in Table 1, from FY2003 to FY2012, U.S. assessed contributions to UNESCO
ranged between $70 million and $84 million per year. (The United States did not contribute to the
assessed budget in FY2003, when the United States was not a UNESCO member and FY2012,
when it withheld funding.) Voluntary contributions fluctuated between $840,000 and $1.85
million during the same time period. Although the United States was not a member of UNESCO
between 1984 and 2003, it continued to provide voluntary funding through the IO&P account.
Table 1. U.S. Contributions to UNESCO: FY2003-FY2012
(in millions of current U.S. dol ars)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Assessed (CIO)
0.00a
84.14 76.75 70.92 73.48 77.62 75.94 80.92 78.83 0.00b
Voluntary
(IO&P) 1.75 1.89 0.84 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.85 0.00
Source: CRS calculations, Department of State congressional budget justifications, annual appropriations
legislation.
Notes: CIO = Contributions to International Organizations account, IO&P = International Organizations and
Programs account.
a. The United States rejoined UNESCO in 2003; however, it did not resume its assessed contributions until
FY2004.
b. As a result of the current withholding, the United States paid nothing towards calendar year (CY) 2011
assessments to UNESCO (about $79 million depending on exchange rates), which would have been paid
from FY2012 CIO funds. The U.S. CY2012 assessment, which would be covered by FY2013 contributions,
is about $79 million.
For FY2013, President Obama requested $78.968 million in assessed contributions for UNESCO
through the CIO account, and $880,000 in UNESCO/International Contributions for Scientific,
Educational, and Cultural Activities (ICSECA) voluntary funds through the IO&P account. In the
budget, the Administration stated that it “intends to work with Congress to seek legislation that
would provide authority to waive restrictions on paying the U.S. assessed contributions to
Congressional Research Service
12

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

UNESCO.”47 To waive or modify these restrictions, Congress may (1) enact stand-alone
legislation or (2) amend the existing legislative restrictions. FY2013 activities are being funded
through March 27, 2013, under the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, FY2013 (H.J.Res. 117,
P.L. 112-175), approved by Congress in September 2012.
It is unclear whether Congress and the Administration will agree to waive the provisions under
P.L. 103-236 and P.L. 101-246. Some Members have reportedly indicated that a waiver remains
unlikely.48 The House and Senate versions of the FY2013 foreign operations appropriations bills
(H.R. 5857 and S. 3241) do not include voluntary or assessed funding for UNESCO, with the
conference reports for both bills specifically stating that funding for UNESCO is not included in
each bill due to the existing legislative restrictions.49
Issues for Congress
The controversy over Palestinian membership and the broader political climate of fiscal austerity
may prompt some policymakers to take stock of U.S. participation in and funding of UNESCO.
This section discusses selected issues that the 113th Congress may wish to consider.
Impact of U.S. Withholding on UNESCO’s Activities
U.S. and international policymakers generally agree that the U.S. withholding will negatively
affect the scope and effectiveness of UNESCO’s programs and activities. There are
disagreements, however, regarding the extent of this impact. For example, some officials and
experts, including UNESCO DG Irina Bokova, argue that the funding cut has had a crippling
effect on existing activities and impeded the organization’s ability to fulfill its mandate.50 At the
same time, some experts note that during the U.S. withdrawal between 1984 and 2003, UNESCO
was able to fulfill its mission and implement many of its activities without U.S. financial support.
An area of ongoing concern among some U.S. policymakers is the impact that the U.S.
withholding may have on UNESCO programs and activities that the United States views as
strategic priorities—including holocaust education programs, tsunami early warning systems,
educational programs for women and girls, the World Heritage Convention, and various training
and literacy programs in the Middle East. In response, some analysts have noted that UNESCO

47 Congressional Budget Justification, Vol. 2, Foreign Operations, FY2013, Department of State, p. 158; Congressional
Budget Justification, Vol. 1, Department of State Operations, FY2013, Department of State, pp. 581-582, 613-615.
48 See “Effectiveness of Funding Restrictions” section for further discussion of this issue; “Senators Predict Massive
U.S. Withdrawal from International Organizations,” The Cable, ForeignPolicy.com, November 1, 2011; and “State Still
Making the Case for UNESCO Funding,” The Cable, ForeignPolicy.com, November 14, 2011. Also see Transcript;
“U.S. Must Hold UNESCO Accountable for Reckless Admission of ‘Palestine,’ Ros-Lehtinen tells U.N. Ambassador
Rice,” March 20, 2012.
49 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related
Programs Appropriations Bill, 2013
, report to accompany H.R. 5857, 112th Cong., 2nd Sess., May 25, 2012, H.Rept.
112-494 (Washington: GPO, 2012), p. 70; and Senate Committee on Appropriations, Department of State, Foreign
Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, 2013
, report to accompany S. 3241, 112th Cong., 2nd Sess., May
24, 2012, S.Rept. 112-172 (Washington: GPO, 2012), p. 29.
50 John Irish, “UNESCO Chief Says Funding Cuts ‘Crippling’ the Organization,” Reuters, October 12, 2012, and
Steven Erlanger, “Cutoff of U.S. Money Leads UNESCO to Slash Programs and Seek Emergency Aid,” New York
Times,
October 11, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
13

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

activities widely viewed as U.S. priorities are funded primarily through voluntary contributions
from countries other than the United States. (Literacy programs for Afghan soldiers, for example,
are funded by voluntary contributions from Japan.)51 At the same time, UNESCO supporters
emphasize that many of the programs funded by voluntary contributions are managed by entities
financed through the UNESCO regular budget. (The literacy program in Afghanistan, for
instance, is financed through the Afghanistan Field Office and the International Bureau of
Education, both of which are funded through the regular budget.)
Ultimately, the full impact of the U.S. withholding on UNESCO activities remains to be seen, and
may depend on
• what fiscal or organizational actions, if any, UNESCO takes in response to the
sudden funding decrease (for example, any adjustments to the organization’s
budget and programming in both the short and long-term by the Executive Board,
GC, and/or DG);
• the extent to which UNESCO can solicit extrabudgetary contributions from other
countries, other international organizations, or the private sector, to cover any
budget shortfalls; or
• when, if at all, the United States resumes financial contributions to UNESCO (for
example, if the United States withholds UNESCO funding for 2 years, the impact
would be far less than if it were to withhold contributions for 10 years).
Effectiveness of Funding Restrictions
The U.S. financial withholding from UNESCO has raised broader issues about the effectiveness
of the legislative restrictions that prohibit U.S. contributions to U.N. entities that admit Palestine
as a member. In a March 2012 hearing before a House appropriations subcommittee, for example,
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan Rice questioned whether the 20-year
old restrictions are still relevant in 2012. Specifically, she stated that the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process has changed significantly since the 1990s. Rice emphasized that the original legislation
was meant to serve as a deterrent and that, given Palestine’s recent admission to UNESCO, it no
longer serves this function. She argued that rather than withdrawing from UNESCO, which may
jeopardize U.S. interests and priorities, the United States should continue to fund the organization
and work from within to persuade other member states to reverse the decision to admit
Palestine.52
Conversely, some policymakers argue that the U.S. withholding deters Palestinian membership
efforts and U.N. member states who might consider voting in favor of Palestine’s membership.
They argue that if the United States were to modify the legislative restrictions to allow for
UNESCO funding, it would undermine U.S. credibility and provide a “green light” for Palestine
to apply for membership in entities across the U.N. system. Some may suggest that the General
Assembly’s November 2012 decision to change Palestine’s observer status weakens this

51 The Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3760, “The United States Should Withdraw from UNESCO,” by Brett
Schaefer, October 19, 2012.
52 Drawn from “Testimony of Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations,”
House Subcommittee on Appropriations for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, March 20, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
14

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

argument. Alternatively, it could be argued that the legislation has played a role in preventing
Palestine from achieving U.N. membership.
Role in U.S. Foreign Policy
The role of UNESCO, and multilateralism as a whole, in U.S. foreign policy is one of the
underlying issues facing policymakers as they consider U.S. funding of and participation in the
organization. In addition to concerns regarding Palestinian membership, some critics of UNESCO
maintain that its activities do not reflect U.S. foreign policy interests. Specifically, they suggest
that the United States should devote its resources to bilateral projects that are more in line with
U.S. priorities. They emphasize that the United States regularly contributed nearly one-quarter of
the UNESCO budget, yet has only one vote in the General Conference and therefore little
influence over how U.S. funds are spent. Some critics are also frustrated by UNESCO’s history of
perceived anti-American leanings and disproportionate focus on Israel. Moreover, as international
organizations and development agencies increase their activities in the educational, scientific, and
cultural fields, some U.S. policymakers have questioned whether UNESCO is the most effective
organization for addressing these issues. They suggest that to stay competitive in the changing
multilateral landscape, UNESCO should reevaluate its mission and the scope of its activities to
ensure its relevance.
Supporters of UNESCO maintain that the organization plays a key role in global issues that the
United States views as strategic priorities, particularly education, science, cultural heritage, and
media freedom. They contend that U.S. participation in and funding of UNESCO allows the
United States to influence the organization’s budget and activities, as well as pursue U.S. foreign
policy objectives in key geographic regions such as the Middle East. Moreover, they emphasize
that U.S. participation allows the government to share costs and resources with other
governments and organizations. Some experts suggest that if the United States does not
participate in or fund UNESCO, it leaves the door open for other countries to influence the scope
and direction of UNESCO programs. Many of these other donor countries, some argue, may not
share the same values or foreign policy priorities of the United States. Proponents further contend
that UNESCO’s convening power and perceived neutrality (particularly among developing
countries) enhances its effectiveness and credibility, allowing it to undertake global challenges the
United States could not address on its own, including coordinating global tsunami early warning
systems and protecting World Heritage sites.
Challenges to Reform
UNESCO faces multiple challenges as it seeks to implement substantive organizational reform. A
key obstacle is governments’ differing perspectives on UNESCO’s role in the global multilateral
framework. Each country has its own foreign policy priorities, political agenda, and perceptions
of how the organization should work. Such differences sometimes lead to fundamental
disagreements on budgeting, programming, and, as most recently demonstrated, membership.
Some experts contend that these disparate perspectives dilute UNESCO’s already broad
organizational mandate. For example, the GC and Executive Board often approve new themes,
activities, and programs for UNESCO headquarters to implement; however, no additional
resources are allocated to implement such activities, and many contend that they are not
sufficiently prioritized. Moreover, existing programs widely viewed as weak or incoherent are
often not eliminated. This occurs not only across UNESCO, but also within individual sectors, in
some cases leading to program duplication.
Congressional Research Service
15

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Compounding this dynamic is the sometimes tenuous relationship between developing and
developed countries in UNESCO fora. Each country has one vote in the GC and Executive Board,
meaning that developing countries, represented primarily by the Group of 77 (G-77),53 often have
the votes to advance their agendas, which some critics argue can be highly politicized. At the
same time, developed countries, including the United States, provide the majority of UNESCO
funding, yet do not have a proportionate voice in determining the organization’s budget or
programs. These countries may seek to influence UNESCO activities by allocating
extrabudgetary funding for specific programs. They may also turn to other international
organizations to address their educational, scientific, or cultural priorities, which some experts
argue may undermine UNESCO’s authority and effectiveness, drawing much needed resources
away from the organization. Indeed, many observers have noted that compared to other IOs such
as the World Bank, UNESCO no longer has the comparative advantage in the education sector. A
recent assessment by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID),
for example, found that “UNESCO’s poor leadership in education in the past has meant that
leadership is often assumed by others.”54
Many observers and policymakers, including some in the United States, have argued that the U.S.
decision to withhold funding from UNESCO may spur the organization to implement further
substantive reform. Specifically, they contend that the budget shortfall has created an opportunity
for member states to improve the organization’s overall efficiency and effectiveness by
reevaluating UNESCO priorities and streamlining its activities. Some critics, however, suggest
that the U.S. withholding has had minimal impact on reform efforts. In their view, UNESCO’s
primary response to the withholding has been to create new funding streams through various
emergency funds.
Looking Ahead
The current and future role of UNESCO as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy remains unclear,
and any number of events may influence U.S. actions toward the organization. Prospects for U.S.
funding of UNESCO might be viewed in the broader context of fiscal austerity debates.
Specifically, some policymakers might be less likely to pursue or advocate U.S. funding of or
participation in UNESCO in the current economic climate. The level and extent of UNESCO’s
response to the U.S. withholding may also influence U.S. policy toward the organization. If
UNESCO were to implement substantive reform, streamline its budget and programs, or rescind
Palestine’s membership, U.S. lawmakers might be more likely to consider funding the
organization. One of the foremost issues policymakers may face is how, if at all, the United States
will engage with the organization if the United States continues to withhold funding from
UNESCO.


53 The G-77 is a group of 132 member countries that aim to articulate and promote their collective economic interests
and enhance their joint negotiating capacity in international fora such as the United Nations.
54 Multilateral Aid Review: Assessment of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), DFID, November 2011, at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/mar/unesco.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
16

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Author Contact Information

Luisa Blanchfield
Marjorie Ann Browne
Specialist in International Relations
Specialist in International Relations
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856
mbrowne@crs.loc.gov, 7-7695

Acknowledgments
Research Associates Tameisha Henry and Elan Mitchell assisted with research for this report.

Congressional Research Service
17