The United Kingdom has a chequered history with UNESCO, the United Nations agency responsible for programmes as varied as measuring global education standards, monitoring freedom of expression, and co-ordinating international tsunami warning systems. It hosted UNESCO’s founding conference in London between 1 and 16 November 1945, and provided its first Director-General, the celebrated biologist and humanist Julian Huxley. The United Kingdom withdrew from the organisation in 1985, objecting to what was seen as its political bias, but rejoined in the 1990s. However, UNESCO has again come under scrutiny. In early 2011 the British Government identified it as one of several international organisations failing to meet certain ‘value for money’ criteria. This took place at a time of political concern about the size of Britain’s public debt and was accompanied by an intention to review membership if significant improvements were not achieved. In the same year a majority of UNESCO’s state members voted to make Palestine a full member, triggering the immediate suspension of United States funding. This complicated further Britain’s relations with UNESCO and led it to abstain from voting on Palestinian admission. For UNESCO’s leadership and members, including the United Kingdom, the situation was clear – UNESCO must reform, prioritise and do fewer things better, and focus on its core mandate from the United Nations or risk marginalisation.
The United Kingdom has a chequered history with UNESCO, the United Nations agency responsible for programmes as varied as measuring global education standards, monitoring freedom of expression, and co-ordinating international tsunami warning systems. It hosted UNESCO’s founding conference in London between 1 and 16 November 1945, and provided its first Director-General, the celebrated biologist and humanist Julian Huxley. The United Kingdom withdrew from the organisation in 1985, objecting to what was seen as its political bias, but rejoined in the 1990s. However, UNESCO has again come under scrutiny. In early 2011 the British Government identified it as one of several international organisations failing to meet certain ‘value for money’ criteria. This took place at a time of political concern about the size of Britain’s public debt and was accompanied by an intention to review membership if significant improvements were not achieved. In the same year a majority of UNESCO’s state members voted to make Palestine a full member, triggering the immediate suspension of United States funding. This complicated further Britain’s relations with UNESCO and led it to abstain from voting on Palestinian admission. For UNESCO’s leadership and members, including the United Kingdom, the situation was clear – UNESCO must reform, prioritise and do fewer things better, and focus on its core mandate from the United Nations or risk marginalisation.