Talk:Member states of UNESCO

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Palestine is not yet member of UNESCO[edit]

According to UNESCO statment Palestine is not a member state yet: “For its membership to take effect*, Palestine must sign and ratify UNESCO’s Constitution which is open for signature in the archives of the Government of the United Kingdom in London.” Aotearoa (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO observers, Palestine vote sources?[edit]

Can someone provide the following sources:

  • voting breakdown in the 58-member sub-committee vote (we have the list, but I don't see a source for it)
  • voting breakdown in the main UNESCO vote (we have the list, but I don't see a source for it)
  • the text of the membership application - we have "presented by 24 states requesting that the State of Palestine be granted membership" - who are these 24 states and what wording is utilized in the application?
  • the text of the membership decision

Also, here it's written that there are "3 Permanent Observers and 10 intergovernmental organizations with Permanent Observer Missions to UNESCO." - who are those 13 UNESCO observers?

This is posted also here. Japinderum (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admission of Palestine[edit]

I've added that section so it can be featured in ITN as a replacement of the initial article chosen which was taken out following a copyright concern. Please improve that section. Thank you. Tachfin (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strange addition[edit]

Recently an edit was made [1] adding the following text in the lead: "Palestine, however, has gained a full membership. [4]" It's right after "The associate members are non-independent states.", so I assume the "however" is there to say something like "Non-independent states can become associate members, however Palestine gained full membership". The problem is that the State of Palestine who apparently was approved for full membership gained this membership as independent state - if it weren't considered to be such by UNESCO it wouldn't be approved for full membership. It's not like UNESCO gave approval for a non-independent state to become UNESCO full member. Yes, some UNESCO members don't recognize the State of Palestine - but the same is the situation of PRChina, Cyprus, Israel and others of the UNESCO full members who aren't universally recognized.

If an additional remark about Palestine is needed (it has a whole section already devoted to) to distinguish it from the rest of the UNESCO full members (in a similar way to how the associate members are distinguished in the lead), including those that aren't universally recognized by everybody else - then this remark should focus on the actual difference of the State of Palestine - it's functioning as a government in exile - the occupation/control of the territory it claims by another state (Israel). Japinderum (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Islands and Niue are full members of UNESCO, and both are non-independent. So, membership in the UNESCO is not admit for independent states only. Aotearoa (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cook Islands and Niue are both independent sovereign states[2][3][4] (see Associated state) - just like the rest of the UNESCO full members.
Anyway, the problem here is that the State of Palestine, by definition, is a fully independent sovereign state. Somebody (or all) can refuse to deal with it, but those who do - they deal with it as an equal partner - independent state. So, the current remark alluding something like "the State of Palestine is a dependency of state X" is wrong - simply ask the question - if the State of Palestine isn't independent, then whom is it a dependency of? Egypt? Lebanon? Syria? Israel? Jordan? somebody else? You can argue that it doesn't exist (yet or forever) or that it shouldn't exist or that it doesn't have any importance because of its lack of control over the territory it claims. But obviously it isn't a dependency. It's territory is occupied/controlled by Israel, but the "State of Palestine" (e.g. the government and its embassies abroad) don't have any relation with Israel. You can say that the "Palestinian territories" or even the "Palestinian National Authority" are dependencies of Israel. But not for the PLO or the State of Palestine - those are completely unrelated to Israel (besides their territorial claims overlapping/conflicting with Israeli territorial control). Japinderum (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US law on Palestine[edit]

Has anyone actually bothered to read it properly?? It says an organisation which admits the PLO as a member state, not the Fatah and Hamas democratically-elected governments of Gaza and the West Bank that compose the state of Palestine. Hamas is not part of the PLO, and Fatah is only affiliated. So if they're that bothered on semantics, let's say today Fatah cut off all links with the name PLO, then this law becomes redundant (probably already is). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.22.82 (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this too, the law might not "technically" apply. I wonder what legal experts have to say on this. On one hand the Palestinian state is the successor entity to the PLO but is different, on the other the PLO could be what State of Palestine means to the U.S since the latter does not recognize the existence of such state. Anyway that's the justification offered by official representatives of the U.S so they probably know what they're talking about. Tachfin (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fatah and Hamas democratically-elected governments of Gaza and the West Bank don't compose the state of Palestine. They compose the Palestinian National Authority. The State of Palestine is composed of PLO institutions such as PLO Executive Committee, PLO Central Committee (that appoints the President of the State of Palestine), PLO Palestinian National Council. Japinderum (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it technically applies or not, the US government is following it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The USA constitution includes the Anglo-American Treaty of 1925. That treaty includes the text of the British Mandate which in turn includes the text of the San Remo Treaty. This means that no land west of the Jordan river can be ceeded to a foreign (Arab) entity. All the land is Jewish land. The USA cannot allow an Arab entity to be created west of the Jordan river. Clinton breached the constitution in 1993 with the Oslo Accords. Every President has complained about increased Jewish settlement when the constitution demands encouragement of Jewish settlement. Violation of the constitution is a very serious matter but nobody seems to care when OIL interests are at stake. The Arabs of the PA, PLO, Hamas et al all have one goal, the destruction of the Jewish state. As this is at odds with the UN charter, international law, geneva conventions, treatiess and the USA constitution there can be no justification what so ever for allowing terrorists in suits any legitimacy. Abbas was the instigator of the Munich massacre for which he is yet to be punished. And he is applauded at the UN! Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.8.241 (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely wrong. The constitution does not include foreign treaties, Israelis are just as foreign to the USA as arabs, the USA probably can't do anything about the middle east without those state's consent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States of America membership[edit]

Why have the USA not been thrown out of the organization, since they refused funding it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here wondering the same thing. Is there a distinction between being a member but not being able to vote, and not being a member? (Certainly the US and Israel cannot vote. I don't know if that makes them non-members now.) Either way, it seems like their inability to vote should be mentioned. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, they have been suspended, not expelled from the organization. They are still members of UNESCO, and are still permitted to participate in all UNESCO activity, and their right to vote will be reinstated immediately once they pay-off their outstanding dues. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Member states of UNESCO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States’ Observer Status[edit]

The map shows that the U.S. has observer status after leaving UNESCO’s membership ranks. However, the article mentions nothing about the U.S. having observer status. In fact, it lists the countries/groups with observer status and the U.S. is not listed.

Is the map correct or incorrect? If it is incorrect, then it should be fixed or removed. Please advise.

Jasonagastrich (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States and Israel back in?[edit]

The map on the website https://fr.unesco.org/countries/ shows Israel and USA as members of the organization, but not the Liechteistein. But it says 193 members, not 195. Is UNESCO website wrong and Wikipedia right? Or two other countries have left UNESCO and USA and Israel are they back in?

24.200.147.60 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Member_states_of_UNESCO&oldid=1206230331"