US withdrawal from UNESCO organisation for third time

The US withdrew from UNESCO for the third time, and the second under its current leadership, citing the agency’s support for “woke” and divisive causes and its anti-Israel bias.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) is a specialised agency of the United Nations, established with a profound mandate to foster peace and sustainable development across the globe. However, the recent announcement of the US withdrawal from the UNESCO organisation underscores tensions and raises questions about the future of international cultural diplomacy.

Overview of UNESCO Organisation

With its headquarters in Paris, this cultural organisation encompasses 194 member states and 12 associate members, making it one of the most comprehensive international bodies focused on education, science, and culture. The organisation’s mandate extends far beyond simple cultural preservation. 

The foundational principles of UNESCO are embedded in its Constitution, which was adopted in London on September 16, 1945, and subsequently came into force in 1946. A significant historical detail is the addition of the “S” for Science in November 1945, broadening the organisation’s scope beyond education and culture. 

UNESCO operates through various programs, including World Heritage Sites designation, the Memory of the World Programme, and the Man and the Biosphere initiative. These efforts represent a collective global commitment to preserving humanity’s shared heritage while fostering sustainable development and intercultural dialogue.

US Withdrawal from UNESCO

Geopolitical shifts, particularly the recurring withdrawal of major global powers, present significant challenges to the stability and effectiveness of multilateral organisations like UNESCO. The United States has announced its withdrawal from UNESCO for the third time, with previous departures occurring in 1984 and 2017. The decision will take effect on December 31, 2026. 

The reasons cited for this withdrawal include a perceived “anti-Israel stance,” the promotion of “divisive social and cultural agendas,” a focus on UN Sustainable Development Goals viewed as conflicting with “America First” foreign policy, and UNESCO’s decision to admit the “State of Palestine” as a member.

Broader Implications for Global Governance

The US departure from UNESCO carries significant implications beyond symbolic gestures. Financially, the loss of nearly 8% of UNESCO’s budget creates immediate operational challenges.

The withdrawal also signals broader challenges facing international institutions in an era of rising populism and nationalism. Multilateral bodies struggle to maintain relevance and legitimacy when major powers view them as impediments rather than enablers. 

Impact on Cultural Diplomacy and Soft Power

UNESCO’s role extends far beyond administrative functions. It serves as a crucial platform for cultural diplomacy and soft power projection. Through its various programs, the cultural organisation helps shape global narratives about heritage, education, and scientific progress. 

The timing of this withdrawal coincides with UNESCO’s continued expansion of global heritage recognition. The organisation’s capacity to address critical issues through education and cultural exchange becomes compromised when major stakeholders disengage. Programs addressing digital literacy, scientific cooperation, and cultural preservation depend on the kind of broad international support that becomes fragmented when key players pursue unilateral approaches.

India’s Historical Role: Founding Member and Consistent Contributor

India’s engagement with UNESCO is characterized by a deep and enduring partnership, rooted in its status as a founding member. The nation ratified UNESCO’s Constitution on November 4, 1946. This early pledge to UNESCO’s ideals reflects India’s belief in multilateralism and the transformative power of education, science, and culture in fostering global harmony.  

Since its inception, India has consistently demonstrated a leadership role in supporting and implementing UNESCO’s priorities across its diverse agendas, including education, science, and culture. Additionally, India is a party to 19 UNESCO Conventions, covering critical areas such as natural and cultural heritage, education, and intellectual property rights. 

Recent ratifications, including the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003), the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005), and the Convention Against Doping in Sports (2005), showcase India’s proactive role in shaping and adhering to international norms and standards. 

India demonstrates how nations can leverage international frameworks for national development while contributing to global knowledge commons. The country maintains a robust Tentative List of 62 sites and has 44 World Heritage Sites as of 2025. This indicates a sustained commitment to heritage recognition. 

The presence of UNESCO MGIEP (Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Education for Peace and Sustainable Development) in New Delhi, established as UNESCO’s Category I Research Institute with substantial Indian government support, exemplifies India’s proactive leadership in global education initiatives. This institution focuses on Sustainable Development Goal 4.7, demonstrating India’s capacity to host and lead international educational innovation.

Additionally, India’s commitment to pluralism and cultural diversity aligns well with UNESCO’s founding principles. This also enhances India’s soft power projection.

Lessons for International Cooperation

The withdrawal from UNESCO offers important lessons about the challenges facing international institutions. To mitigate these challenges and ensure stability, organizations require diverse funding sources and distributed leadership, thereby preventing over-dependence on any single powerful entity.

The role of social organisations and civil society also becomes important during such transitions. These actors can maintain continuity in UNESCO’s programs while advocating for continued international cooperation. Their grassroots connections and technical expertise provide stability that transcends political changes in member governments, ensuring vital programs continue despite state-level political fluctuations.

Conclusion

The third US withdrawal from the UNESCO organisation reflects broader tensions in contemporary global governance between nationalism and multilateral cooperation. The outcome will depend on whether committed members can maintain UNESCO’s mission while adapting to evolving geopolitical realities. 

The debate over UNESCO’s future reflects fundamental questions about how nations should address shared challenges in an interconnected world. Promoting multilateralism remains essential for tackling complex global issues that transcend national borders, from climate change and pandemics to cultural preservation and educational advancement. 

Master International Relations & Global Governance with VisionIAS Comprehensive Current Affairs →