Fight fire with fire, the case of UNESCO’s crisis

The functionalist theory of David Mitrany about the origin of the UN system assumes that the ‘technical approach of international political problems can set aside, and even neutralize, the politicization of issues’ (Devin, 2008:253). Yet, the ‘politicization of UNESCO’ has largely been interpreted since the 1980s as a failure of the organization, unable to act as a technical agency. The reason for its structural crisis, characterized by major budgetary difficulties and an increasing lack of legitimacy, is indeed the rising number of decisions deemed ‘too political’ by some Member States. After having systematically distinguished the programs and projects considered as ‘technical’ or ‘political’, relevant or irrelevant to UNESCO’s mandate, the United States decided to withdraw from its budget and/or its intergovernmental bodies in 1984, 2011 and 2017. Taking over the functionalist theory, which is hostile to politics, the US succeeded in imposing a single interpretation of the ‘UNESCO’s crisis’ and to present themselves as its victims. To overcome this internal crisis, UNESCO staff supported by some Member States (Italy, France) took the opportunity of another external crisis (characterized by the systematic destruction of the World Heritage sites by terrorist groups from 2012 to 2015) to reposition the organization within the ‘hierarchy of multilateralism’. Based on qualitative methods (participant observation, interviews and grey literature analysis), this contribution aims at demonstrating that the ‘crisis’ largely seen as a ‘negative’ situation can become an opportunity for international organization. The management of a temporary crisis, which triggered critics, also allows UNESCO staff to overcome a structural crisis by pushing Member States to expand and relegitimize the mandate of this agency.