UNESCO and U.S. humility
Eiji Hattori, Professor of Comparative Study of Civilizations Reitaku University, The Asahi Shimbun, Tokyo
The United States must make an effort to understand cultural diversity and traditional values sought by people of different ethnic backgrounds.
Shocking revelations about abductions of Japanese nationals by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), U.S. threats to attack Iraq and escalated antagonism between Israel and the Palestinians have dominated the news in recent months.
Amid such striking developments, however, was an incident that drew little media coverage and public attention. It is the return of the U.S. to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
In an address to the UN General Assembly in September, President George W. Bush announced the U.S. decision to rejoin the agency a full 18 years after its withdrawal.
The announcement came at the end of a long campaign by UNESCO Director-General Koichiro Matsuura, the first Japanese to head the agency, to encourage the U.S.to come back into the fold. This is no doubt good news, and I welcome it.
At the same time, however, I do not feel completely comfortable with the change of heart. Washington has yet to dispel suspicion its return is aimed at dodging international criticism of U.S. unilateralism.
Immediately after announcing its reconciliation with UNESCO, the White House began to publicize the policy program, the Bush doctrine, with a strong tint of unilateralism.
When the U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984, it cited the following three reasons.
The first was the supposed politicization of the organization. The U.S. accused then director-general Amadou Mahtar M'Bow (of Senegal) of leaning toward the former Soviet Union and encouraging Third World nations to follow suit, thereby creating an anti-Western "automatic absolute majority."
The second factor behind the U.S. withdrawal was its opposition to the concept of a "new world information and communication order" advocated by UNESCO.
Claiming it was unfair that Western industrialized nations were monopolizing global information, proponents of the order demanded that Western mass media reflect the viewpoints of developing nations. The U.S. objected to the proposal on the grounds that it may lead to censorship and restrict freedom of the press.
Third, the U.S. left UNESCO in protest of alleged mismanagement by the director-general, including inefficient personnel management and nepotism.
The first reason faded with the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The second obstacle was also removed when director-general Federico Mayor Zaragoza (of Spain), Matsuura's predecessor, retracted the proposed information policy.
Thanks to a structural reform program implemented under Matsuura's initiative, the third problem was also put to rest. After a series of reforms, including budgetary allocations to key projects, enhanced transparency in personnel management and operational streamlining, UNESCO cut in half the number of department chiefs and higher posts.
In fact, the three problems that estranged the U.S. in the 1980s had disappeared during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who pushed a policy of international cooperation. Clinton tried to win Congressional approval for the US$60 million needed to rejoin the organization, but the bid was turned down by the Republican- controlled Senate.
Unlike his internationalist predecessor, Bush and his Republican administration has turned to a policy of unilateralism, pursuing U.S. national interests above all others. Given the circumstances, it is natural to assume that the United States returned to UNESCO for one reason, namely the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In other words, the U.S., which had slighted the UN in the past, realized the importance of international public opinion and the need to solicit the cooperation of international society to win the war against terrorism.
UNESCO serves as a standing forum for nurturing international public opinion. Progressive concepts such as "lifelong education" and "world heritage" conceived by UNESCO have evolved into globally accepted ideas. While seeking to act alone, it appears the United States decided to rejoin UNESCO in hopes of winning over international public opinion at the same time.
The U.S. may be the world's only superpower. However, even as it comes back aboard, it should remember that it is just one of 190 members and must listen to the opinions of fellow members. It must not assume that it has a power in UNESCO similar to its veto power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to get its way.
Washington must do away with the idea of U.S.-centric globalization and the supremacist presumption that "American justice is global justice."
It must make an effort to understand cultural diversity and traditional values sought by people of different ethnic backgrounds. Only when the United States acquires the humility to learn from others can it consider itself a true friend of international society.