UNESCO at a crossroads again

The preamble of the constitution of UNESCO, adopted in 1945, has the words of American poet and writer Archibald MacLeish: “...since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.”

In 2014, J P Singh examined the return of the United States to UNESCO through the lens of a persistent tension that has long shaped the organisation’s identity: the uneasy coexistence of global ideals and national politics. His essay, A 21st Century UNESCO: Ideals and Politics in an Era of US Re-engagement, argued that UNESCO has always operated in the fraught space between moral aspiration and political calculation. A decade later, that diagnosis feels not only relevant – it feels prophetic.

The imminent withdrawal of the United States from UNESCO has reopened many of the structural wounds that Singh identified: ideological rifts, funding instability, and an unresolved question of what kind of multilateralism UNESCO truly represents. But it also poses new questions that are sharpened by the geopolitical realignments of the 2020s and a deepening distrust of global institutions.

UNESCO’s mission – promoting peace through education, science, culture, and communication – is one of the purest articulations of postwar multilateral idealism. Yet, its history has been marked by repeated political contestation that often turned the organisation into a proxy battlefield for ideological or geopolitical disputes.

The US has historically been both a principal patron and a principal disruptor. From its withdrawal in 1984 under the Reagan administration to its re-entry in 2003, withdrawal again in 2018, rejoining in 2023, and now renewed disengagement, Washington’s oscillations reflect a broader scepticism about the purpose and direction of multilateral institutions.

But UNESCO is not just a victim of this politics – it is also a site where these politics have continued to play out. Whether through debates over the Palestinian statehood, digital ethics, or the geopolitics of heritage, the organisation becomes a litmus test for global ideological divides. Singh’s call to recognise and manage this reality, rather than deny it, remains urgently relevant.

The presence of the US in UNESCO has never been purely symbolic. It has been financial. The US currently contributes approximately 8% of UNESCO’s total annual budget. This figure reflects a sharp decline from the roughly 22% share prior to its 2011-2018 withdrawal and makes the US a comparatively minor funder today. But every withdrawal also leaves a sizeable gap, one that is not easily filled by the other members.

This fiscal instability compromises programme delivery, undermines institutional planning, and – critically – weakens the trust in UNESCO’s viability. When a founding member and one of its largest funders repeatedly departs the organisation, the message to the world is clear: multilateralism is conditional, and norms can be abandoned. The resulting vacuum has geopolitical consequences. Other powers, particularly China and the Gulf states, have increased their influence in UNESCO’s cultural and scientific domains, often with their own normative visions. As Singh warned, a disengaged US cedes not just ground, but narrative.

A catalyst for reform?

Yet, the current moment is not only one of retreat – it may also be a moment for recalibration. UNESCO’s legitimacy must be rooted in more than political patronage. It must be anchored in delivering global goods in education, scientific collaboration, and cultural protection that transcend power politics.

Today, with AI governance, climate education, indigenous knowledge systems, and heritage preservation at the forefront of global concern, UNESCO’s mandate is arguably more relevant than ever. But it must demonstrate agility, neutrality, and transparency to reclaim trust.

The absence of the US, though destabilising, could also free UNESCO from the paralysis of superpower scrutiny. It opens a window for the middle powers, civil society, and epistemic communities to shape a more pluralistic and grounded vision of global cultural cooperation, beyond the shadow of a superpower.

UNESCO’s journey has never been smooth. The organisation’s resilience lies in its ability to navigate contradiction, not eliminate it. The challenge now is to reaffirm the value of its ideals without being naïve about its political constraints.

The US may return, again. Or it may not. Either way, UNESCO must learn to sustain its mission without becoming hostage to any one member’s ambivalence. That will require not just budgetary reform, but a deepened commitment to its founding ethos: that peace begins in the minds of people – and that those minds, diverse and global, must shape the future of multilateralism.

(The writer taught Political Science at Bangalore University. He is currently an honorary professor at Mahatma Gandhi Rural Development and Panchayat Raj University, Gadag)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.