US announces withdrawal from UN cultural body Unesco
Donald Trump is not the first American president to pull the United States out of the Paris-based UN agency. Photo: Reuters
The United States on Tuesday announced it has left Unesco, saying the UN cultural and education agency, known for establishing world heritage sites, is biased against Israel and promotes "divisive" causes.
"Continued involvement in Unesco is not in the national interest of the United States," State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said.
The US exit was expected under President Donald Trump, who also ordered withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in 2017 during his first term. His successor Joe Biden then re-established US membership.
Bruce described Unesco as working "to advance divisive social and cultural causes" and being overly focused on UN sustainability goals, which she described as a "globalist, ideological agenda".
She also highlighted what she said was the body's anti-Israeli position in admitting Palestine as a state.
"Unesco's decision to admit the 'State of Palestine' as a member state is highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organisation," Bruce said.
The UN organisation describes its mission as promoting education, scientific cooperation and cultural understanding.
It oversees a list of heritage sites aimed at preserving unique environmental and architectural gems, ranging from the Great Barrier Reef off Australia and the Serengeti in Tanzania to the Athens Acropolis and Pyramids of Egypt.
Trump was not the first to pull the US out of Unesco.
President Ronald Reagan also ended US membership in the 1980s, saying the agency was corrupt and pro-Soviet. The US re-entered under the presidency of George W Bush. (AFP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AllAfrica
2 hours ago
- AllAfrica
US lands African resources with version of Chinese-Russian scheme
A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one in which a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security. The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda. A key part of the agreement binds both nations to developing a regional economic integration framework. This arrangement would expand cooperation among the two states, the US government and American investors on 'transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains.' Despite its immense mineral wealth, the DRC is among the five poorest countries in the world. It has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector. The US has in turn touted a potential multi-billion-dollar investment program to anchor its mineral supply chains in the traumatized and poor territory. The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington's powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight. The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda. But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US. The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marred by war and tension since the bloody First (1996-1997) and Second (1998-2003) Congo wars. At the heart of much of this conflict is the DRC's mineral wealth. It has fueled competition, exploitation and armed violence. This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren't new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country's minerals. We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources. Based on our research on mining, development and sustainability, we believe this is unlikely. This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC. Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola. Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements. The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals including cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world's third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices. For almost 30 years, minerals have fueled conflict and severe violence, especially in eastern DRC. Tungsten, tantalum and gold (referred to as 3TG) finance and drive conflict as government forces and an estimated 130 armed groups vie for control over lucrative mining sites. Several reports and studies have implicated the DRC's neighbours – Rwanda and Uganda – in supporting the illegal extraction of 3TG in this region. The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometers) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces. This context makes the United States' military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps. Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control. Here's how this happens: Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa. For instance, Angola's US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan's design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted. These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defense, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain. In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit. Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion. These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming a permanent feature, not a temporary cost. Critical minerals are 'critical' because they're hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn't trade that future away. In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage. But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means: investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals demanding local value creation and addition; requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements; refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards. Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield. Hanri Mostertl is the SARChI chair for mineral law in Africa, University of Cape Town; and Tracy-Lynn Field is a professor of environmental and sustainability law, University of the Witwatersrand. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Standard
3 hours ago
- The Standard
US-Philippines trade talks yield modest tariff shift after Trump-Marcos meeting
President Donald Trump meets with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, July 22, 2025, in Washington. (Photo: AP/Alex Brandon)
RTHK
4 hours ago
- RTHK
Over 100 groups warn of faltering aid efforts in Gaza
Over 100 groups warn of faltering aid efforts in Gaza People march along the streets of New York City in a 'Stop Starving Gaza Now' protest. Photo: Reuters More than 100 aid organisations warned on Wednesday that "mass starvation" was spreading in Gaza ahead of the US top envoy's visit to Europe for talks on a possible ceasefire and an aid corridor. Israel is facing mounting international pressure over the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the enclave, where more than two million people face severe shortages of food and other essentials after 21 months of conflict, triggered by Hamas' attack on Israel. The UN said on Tuesday that Israeli forces had killed more than 1,000 Palestinians trying to get food aid since the US- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation started operations in late May – effectively sidelining the existing UN-led system. A statement with 111 signatories, including Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children and Oxfam, warned that "our colleagues and those we serve are wasting away". The groups called for an immediate negotiated ceasefire, the opening of all land crossings and the free flow of aid through UN-led mechanisms. It came a day after the United States said its envoy Steve Witkoff will head to Europe this week for talks on Gaza and may then visit the Middle East. Even after Israel began easing a more than two-month aid blockade in late May, Gaza's population is still suffering extreme scarcities. In their statement, the humanitarian organisations said that warehouses with tonnes of supplies were sitting untouched just outside the territory, and even inside, as they were blocked from accessing or delivering the goods. "Palestinians are trapped in a cycle of hope and heartbreak, waiting for assistance and ceasefires, only to wake up to worsening conditions," the signatories said. "It is not just physical torment, but psychological. Survival is dangled like a mirage," they added. "The humanitarian system cannot run on false promises. Humanitarians cannot operate on shifting timelines or wait for political commitments that fail to deliver access." UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Tuesday that the "horror" facing Palestinians in Gaza under Israeli military attack was unprecedented in recent years. The head of Gaza's largest hospital said Tuesday 21 children had died due to malnutrition and starvation in the past three days. (AFP)
