Whither UNESCO?: A research guide to US-UNESCO relations

Government Publications Review, Vol. 13, pp. 105-121, 1986 Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.

0277-9390/86 $3.00 + .OO Copyright 0 1986 Pergamon Press Ltd

WHITHER UNESCO?

A Research Guide to US-UNESCO Relations

HUGH REYNOLDS U.S. General Accounting Office, Dallas Regional Office, 1114 Commerce St., Room 607, Dallas, Texas 75242

Abstract-On December 28, 1983, the United States announced that it would withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza- tion (UNESCO) effective December 31, 1984. This decision was reaffirmed and finalized on December 19, 1984. Reasons given for leaving UNESCO were: (1) chronic management, personnel, and budget problems; (2) promotion of collectivist concepts at the expense of individual liberties and a free press; and (3) continued politicization of technical issues and a strong anti-Western bias. This paper is a bibliographical essay with a dual purpose: first, it examines the background of the controversy and discusses the arguments for and against U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO; second, it provides researchers with citations from both official documents and secondary sources of literature. The bibliography is organized into five parts: (1) UNESCO official documents and publications, (2) major books describing UNESCO’s history and development, (3) articles from general interest magazines and professional journals from the U.S. and abroad, (4) newspaper articles and editorials from major U.S. newspapers, and (5) U.S. government publications from the Department of State, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. General Ac- counting Office.

INTRODUCTION

On December 28, 1983, U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz sent a letter to Amadou- Mahtar M’Bow, Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), announcing the withdrawal of the United States from that agency effective December 31, 1984 [l]. After a year of public debate about the threatened pullout, the United States confirmed the decision on December 19, 1984 [2].

Although U.S.-UNESCO relations had been strained for years, the decision to leave UNESCO came as a surprise to many people, both in the U.S. and abroad. The departure has focused widespread attention on this agency’s troubles and has created intense interest in the fate of UNESCO. Consequently, there is a growing demand for information about the organization, its history and development, the reasons for the present crisis, and the public reaction to the withdrawal.

The author became acquainted with Bernard Fry during his five years as a reference librarian at the Indiana Univer- sity Government Publications Department in Bloomington. His duties brought him into frequent contact with Dean Fry, who was then teaching government publications and running the IU Research Center for Library and Informa- tion Science. They share an interest in information and communications policy and have spent many hours exchang- ing ideas and discussing trends in this field. Reynolds writes: “ I am indebted to Dean Fry, whose assistance and en- couragement have contributed so much to my professional development.”

The author gratefully acknowledges the professional assistance of Chuck Janay Bartelt, who typed and edited the manuscript.

105

106 HUGH REYNOLDS

This review of the literature on UNESCO is intended to answer this need. It is a bibliographical essay in five parts: part one is a discussion and listing of major official UNESCO documents and publications; part two briefly annotates principal books on the establishment, growth, and development of the agency; part three identifies recent articles in general interest magazines and professional journals; part four examines newspaper reports and editorials published in major U.S. newspapers since the withdrawal decision was made public; and part five analyzes and lists U.S. government publications dealing with UNESCO, including Department of State documents, congressional hearings, and management and financial reports from the General Accounting Office.

It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt a comprehensive examination of the issues involved in the complex and long-standing disputes between the US. and UNESCO. The purpose of this guide is twofold; to highlight the major themes in this controversy and to provide researchers with a selection of citations from both official and secondary sources.

WHAT IS UNESCO?

UNESCO was conceived in November 1945 and born in November 1946 [3]. It was established as a specialized agency of the United Nations for the purpose of fostering peace through international cooperation in education, science, culture, and communications. Dur- ing its first two decades, UNESCO functioned as a technical organization providing training, advice, and assistance to teachers, technicians, and scientists in member countries.

A brief statement of UNESCO’s major programs and activities will provide some idea of the scope and content of its work. To fulfill its educational mandate, UNESCO trains teachers, promotes literacy campaigns, runs information clearinghouses, conducts seminars, and publishes scholarly research, handbooks, and curriculum guides. Scientific activities include programs in geoiogy, hydrology, oceanography, seismofogy, ecology, meteorology, and arid zone research. In the cultural sphere, the agency has fostered activities in the visual and performing arts, music, and museums; promoted the collection and publication of oral traditions and regional histories; and sponsored the preservation of archaeological sites and monuments. Finally, UNESCO is the administrative body that executes the provisions of such international cooperative programs as the Universal Copyright Convention, the Inter- national Programme for the Development of Communication, and parts of the U.N. Development Programme [4].

REASONS FOR WITH~~WAL

In its withdrawal announcement of December 1983, the Reagan administration identified three basic reasons for leaving the organization:

(1) UNESCO has serious and persistent management, personnel, and budgeting problems;

(2) it promotes statist, or collectivist, concepts such as the New World Information Order; and

(3) it continues to politicize almost every issue brought before it. [5]

(I) ~a~ag~~~nt, Personnel, and Budget Problems

The complaints concerning UNESCO’s management and personne1 practices include administrative inefficiency, staffing by patronage and nepotism at the expense of competence

Whither Unesco? 107

and merit, poor morale throughout the Secretariat, resignations of high UNESCO officials, and misallocation of personnel funds related to several hundred unfilled staff positions [6]. Many of these problems may be attributable in part to the agency’s unique tripartite organizational structure in which power and authority are unevenly distributed among the General Conference, the Executive Board, and the Secretariat. But accusations of mismanagement and even corruption are too widespread to be so easily dismissed.

As contributor of 25% of UNESCO’s annual budget ($50 million out of $200 million in 1983), the United States is understandably concerned about the rapid expansion of spending in the agency in recent years. During the past decade, the total assessed budget grew from $52.7 million in 1973 to almost $200 million in 1983, a fourfold increase [7]. But it is misleading to portray U.S. payments to UNESCO as a net loss. In its annual report to the Congress for 1983, “the State Department estimated that 40% of the U.S. contribution to UNESCO returns to this country in the form of fellowships, sales of equipment, and fees to consultants” [8].

These management and budget issues were analyzed in a report issued in April, 1984, by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The committee staff was critical of some of the administration’s arguments, claiming that the case for withdrawal was weak [9]. At about the same time this report was released, the Congress sent a team of auditors from the General Accounting Office to UNESCO headquarters in Paris to investigate the accusations against it [IO]. Both of these reports are discussed in section five of this review.

(2) Statist Concepts

UNESCO has been an international forum for Third World issues since the early 1960s. During the 197Os, debates in the General Conference began to take on an anti-Western tone. Critics of the organization have accused it of allowing the Soviet Union to manipulate these concerns and to use the problems of the underdeveloped world to further its own political ends. The Soviets have sponsored a number of UNESCO resolutions designed to exploit these issues, centralize state power, and align UNESCO member votes against the U.S.

The most prominent example of a collectivist resolution sponsored by the Soviets against the West was the New World Information Order (NWIO) [l 11. This proposal (actually a series of loosely related initiatives) advocated a global redistribution of computer and communications technology, a more balanced flow of news to counteract the dominance of Western wire services and newspapers, state control over mass media content, and the “pro- tection” of international journalists, which most Western editors, broadcasters, and reporters regarded as a thinly disguised plan for licensing and controlling foreign correspondents.

It is not possible here to discuss the many issues and controversies involved in the NWIO. Readers interested in reviewing this topic are referred to UNESCO’s bibliography A New World Information and Communication Order and Supplement listed in section one. These two publications list almost 1100 items dealing with this worldwide debate [ 121.

One additional concept proposed in UNESCO debates which the Reagan administration has found objectionable is the promotion of “peoples’ rights.” The State Department has argued that this emphasis on collective rights undermines individual human rights by yielding more power to the state in the name of cultural, ethnic, and racial groups. The report of the House Foreign Affairs Committee disputes this claim, arguing that the promotion of people’s rights “does not necessarily diminish the legitimacy of individual human rights.” The report identifies this concept as part of an evolving standard of human rights and suggests that opposition to it can weaken U.S. credibility throughout the world [13].

108 HUGH REYNOLDS

(3) Politicization

The third charge leveled against UNESCO states that the agency has politicized most of the issues on its agenda. The actions most frequently cited are the anti-Israel resolutions of 1974 and peace and disarmament studies. Before discussing these issues, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the term “politicization.”

Politicization often seems to be a condition that afflicts an organization only when the votes are in favor of the other side. In other words, to simply accuse UNESCO of playing politics is to miss the point. The agency is by its very nature a political institution charged with the responsibility of negotiating and bargaining among 161 member states with conflict- ing interests.

The House report cited earlier drew a distinction between politics and politicization. While politics can be seen as the ordinary process of debate and compromise in the course of an organization’s business, politicization is defined as:

the introduction of highly charged, highly controversial, and extraneous issues into international debates that polarize parties to the debate and promote hostile, con- frontational rhetoric that hardens positions. [14]

For the U.S. to deny UNESCO the right to engage in political debate is to contradict that agency’s purpose and to reject the democratic process [15]. But in a number of cases, UNESCO has clearly crossed the line between organizational politics and extraneous partisan debate.

The Israel Resolutions. In 1974, the UNESCO General Conference passed a series of resolutions against the state of Israel. First, the agency condemned Israel for archaeological activities in Jerusalem. Second, Israel’s application to join the European regional sub-group was denied, effectively locking that nation out of participation in UNESCO. Third, the General Conference demanded authority to supervise the education of Arabs living in the occupied territories [16]. These actions were taken to embarrass and punish Israel for partisan purposes outside the jurisdiction of UNESCO, without regard for the evidence. The United States stopped payments to UNESCO until the agency removed the sanctions and allowed Israel into the European group in 1977 [17]. During the current U.S.-UNESCO controversy, however, Israel finds itself in the ironic position of siding with UNESCO against the United States. At the 1983 General Conference, “Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO informed the U.S. delegation that his nation strongly opposed American withdrawal, on the grounds that it might invite renewed attacks” [18].

Peace and Disarmament Studies. The State Department provided as further evidence of UNESCO’s politicization the fact that UNESCO has budgeted almost $1 million per year on peace research and disarmament studies. According to the staff of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, however, this amount is less than 1% of the educational sector budget of $135.7 million for 1984-85. For the State Department to condemn UNESCO on this point and to cite it as a major justification for unilateral withdrawal is especially incomprehensible in view of the fact that the Department’s own U.S./UNESCO Policy Review praises the contribution of UNESCO’s peace and disarmament research to the U.S. [19].

REASONS FOR STAYING IN UNESCO

While the U.S. decision to leave UNESCO has wide support and some degree of justification, there are compelling reasons for this country to reconsider withdrawal. Aside from the

Whither Unesco? 109

loss of important scientific research and educational exchange programs, the U.S. is losing an international forum for presenting its social and cultural values to developing nations. The absence of the U.S. in UNESCO will strengthen anti-Western forces and provide the Soviet Union with an uncontested propaganda base. In the words of Dr. Roger Revelle of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, UNESCO “is not a good organization, but it is an essential organization” [20].

UNESCO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS

UNESCO has a worldwide publishing program that produces and distributes thousands of books, journals, pamphlets, directories, reports, technical studies, and documents every year in many languages. The organization has been criticized because over 75% of its budget is spent at its headquarters in Paris rather than in the member countries. These critics, however, misunderstand the nature of UNESCO. The organization was designed to function as an advisory organization to provide technical advice, prepare teacher training manuals, sponsor professional conferences, promote educational and scientific exchanges, and publish research findings. In short, UNESCO “provides intellectual tools for people who do work in the field” [21].

The printed materials issued by UNESCO can be divided into two main categories: documents and publications. The first group includes administrative records, conference proceedings, reports of committees, transcripts of meetings, regulations, working papers, and other items that report on or support the internal work of the organization and its sub- divisions. These materials generally have limited distribution. The second group consists of information pamphlets, technical reports, scholarly studies, books, reference works, statistical compilations, maps, and periodicals. These are intended for a wide audience and are often published in several languages [22].

A brief review of UNESCO publications and information systems can be found in Diana B. Cohen’s “User Guide to UNESCO Publications and Documentation,” (Government Publications Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979, pp. 161-163). Peter I. Hajnal’s Guide to UNESCO (Oceana, 1983) constitutes the most comprehensive and well-organized sourcebook available on the subject. A description of this reference work can be found later in this paper.

This section is arranged by source and type of material. The documents and publications listed represent only a small fraction of the total output of UNESCO’s publishing program. Major documents of the General Conference and Executive Board are briefly annotated while publications of the Secretariat and associated organizations are listed without annota- tion.

A. Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Adopted in London on 16 November, 1945, and amended by the General Conference at its 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, lOth, 12th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 20th, and 21st sessions.

B. General Conference Documents:

Records of the General Conference. 1946- . Official records detailing each session of the biennial General Conference and including proceedings, committee reports, resolutions, calender of meetings, list of delegates and officers, and indexes.

Draft Programme and Budget. 1941- . Biennial proposed budget and statement of programs presented to the General Conference for debate and passage into the:

Approved Programme and Budget. 1952- . Biennial since 1953-54; detailed blueprint of

110 HUGH REYNOLDS

programs, activities, operations, and policies of the next two years including statement of appropriated funds and personnel to carry them out.

Manual of the General Conference. 1950- . Published following each session of the General Conference, including Constitution with any amendments adopted, membership roll, regional structure, procedural rules, financial regulations, and relations with the UN and other organizations.

Medium- Term Plan (1977-1982). 1976. (19th Session, Nairobi) First six-year planning document detailing major goals and activities in such diverse areas as human rights, science and technology for development, population and environment, education, information transfer, and communication.

Draft Medium- Term Plan (1984-1989). 1982. (4th Extraordinary Session, Paris) Second six-year planning document outlining principal objectives and programmes to be under- taken in all of UNESCO’s mandated areas: education, natural and social sciences, culture, and communication.

C. Executive Board Documents:

Summary Records. 1946- . Sessional record of Executive Board meetings, including minutes, agenda, participants, and texts of speeches.

Decisions Adopted by the Executive Board. 1948- . Published biennially to report the decisions of the Board, identify participants, and list meetings.

Executive Board manual. Rev. ed. 1977. Compilation of the Board’s rules of procedure, organization and functions.

D. Periodicals:

Copyright Bulletin: Quarterly Review. 1967- . Cultures. 1973- . Impact of Science on Society. 1950- . International Social Science Journal. 1949- . Museum: Quarterly Review. 1948- . Nature and Resources. 1965- . Prospects: Quarterly Review of Education. 1969- . UNESCO Courier. 1948- . UNESCO Journal of Information Science, Librarianship and Archives Administration.

1979-1983.

E. Publications in Series:

Communication and Society Cultural Development Newsletter Development of Higher Education Documentation, Libraries, and Archives Educational Studies and Documents ( + New Series) Monographs on Communication Planning Monographs on Fundamental Education Reports and Papers in the Social Sciences Reports and Papers on Mass Communication Studies and Documents on Cultural Policies

Whither Unesco? 111

F. Reference Works, Bibliographies, Directories, and Yearbooks: (Note: All titles are published by UNESCO unless otherwise noted.)

The ABC of Copyright. 1981. Bibliography of Publications Issued by UNESCO or Under Its Auspices; The First

Twenty-five Years: 1946-1971. 1973. Directory of Educational Research Institutions. 1980. Geological World Atlas. 1916- . Handbook for Information Systems and Services. 1977. History of Mankind: Cultural and Scientific Development. London: Allen and Unwin,

1963-1976. 6 ~01s. Index Translationum: International Bibliography of Translations. 1948- . International Yearbook of Education. 1948-1969; 1980- . (Published by UNESCO’s affiliated organization, the International Bureau of Education.) List of Documents and Publications in the Field of Mass Communication. 1916- . A New World Information and Communication Order: Towards a Wider and Better

Balanced Flow of Information; A Bibliography of UNESCO Holdings. 1979. + Sup- plement, 1980-1981. 1982.

Scientific Maps and Atlases; Catalogue 1976. 1916. Statistical Digest. 1981- . Statistical Yearbook. 1963- . Statistics of Educational Attainment and Illiteracy, 1945-1974. 1971. Study Abroad. 1948- . UNESCO List of Documents and Publications. 1912- . UNESCO Yearbook on Peace and Conflict Studies. 1980- . What is UNESCO? 8th ed. 1970. World Communications; A 200-country Survey of Press, Radio, Television, and Film. 5th

ed. 1915. World Directory of Peace Research Institutions. 4th rev. ed. 1981. World Directory of Social Science Institutions; Research, Advanced Training, Documen-

tation, Professional Bodies. 2nd rev. ed. 1979. World Guide to Higher Education; A Comparative Survey of Systems, Degrees and

Qualifications. 1976. World Guide to Science Information and Documentation Services. 1965. World Guide to Technical Information and Documentation Services. 2nd rev. ed. 1915. World List of Social Science Periodicals. 5th rev. ed. 1980. World Meetings; A Two- Year Registry of Future Meetings. 1963- . (Quarterly) World Survey of Education. 1955-1971. 5 ~01s.

BOOKS

Researchers interested in the background and development of UNESCO should be aware of the major historical and analytical works describing the organization. A number of former UNESCO officials have published personal narratives discussing their tenure in the agency, providing an inside look at its origins, functions, purposes, and structure. Outside analyses of UNESCO’s activities and controversies can be found in books by academic and political writers.

The memoirs of UNESCO’s first two Directors-General, Julian Huxley and Jaime Torres Bodet, are valuable chronicles of the early years of the agency. Luther Evans, the third

112 HUGH REYNOLDS

Director-General, published a detailed summary of the 1945 founding conference in Wash- ington and London. Books by Assistant- and Deputy-Directors-Genera1 and Ambassadors in&de works from the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. Three volumes of speeches by current Director-General Amadou-Mahtar M’Bow are listed in this section for convenience, although they are properly classified as UNESCO publications.

Books and reports of a more scholarly nature make up the remaining citations in this section. James Sewell’s study attempts to establish a theoretical basis for analyzing international relations with an emphasis on UNESCO. George Shuster’s critique of UNESCO was published in 1963 under the sponsorship of the Council on Foreign Relations. The study and documentary record by Daniel Partan a decade later was prepared at the request of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences to assess the politicization of UNESCO during the early 1970s.

Besterman, Theodore. U~ESCO~ Peace in the Minds of Men. London: Methuen, 1951. The author, director of UNESCO’s Department for Exchange of Information during the organization’s first four years, claims in his preface that this is “the first book to be written about UNESCO.” He describes its founding and early years, the ideals and purposes that shaped them, and the prospects for the future. Most chapters have topical bibliographies related to UNESCO’s fields of activity, and a general bibliography is provided. The book includes the text of UNESCO’s Constitution and a subject index.

Evans, Luther H. The United States and UNESCO: A Summary of the United StatesDelega- tion Meetings to the Constituent Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cufturaf Organizations in Washington and condone October-November 194.5. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, I971. The author attended the founding conference as advisor to the U.S. Delegation and later was elected the third Director-General of UNESCO (19.53-1958). This summary of the establishment of UNESCO discusses U.S. strategy, identifies participants, describes Delegation meetings, and reprints some of the official papers from the Washington sessions.

Hajnal, Peter I, Guide to UNESCO. London, Rome, New York: Oceana, 1983. The author has compiled the most exhaustive research guide on UNESCO to date. This is an indispensable reference book for the serious researcher and an invaluable introduction to UNESCO for anyone interested in the organization. Chapters describe UNESCO’s origins, structure, philosophy, activities, financing, programs, documents and publications, and many other aspects of the agency’s work. A 136-page classified bibliography provides annotated citations to 434 titles deahng with or published by UNESCO. Appen- dices include the Constitution, alphabetical and chronological membership rosters, regional structure, financial assessments, an organization chart, and much more. The only flaw in this excellent guide is the self-serving and backhanded imprimatur found in the Foreword by Director-General M’Bow.

Hoggart, Richard. An Idea and Its Servants: UNESCO from Within. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Hoggart served as Assistant Director-General in charge of activities in philosophy, social sciences, culture, environment, population, human rights, and racism. He describes the in- ner workings of the Secretariat and its relations with the Executive Board, the Perm~ent

Whither Unesco? 113

Delegations, and the “intellectual communities.” While recognizing and analyzing the agency’s weaknesses and problems, the author defends UNESCO’s essential value and usefulness in international cooperation.

Huxley, Julian. Memories. London: Allen and Unwin, 1970, 1973. 2 ~01s. As the first Director-General of UNESCO and one of its founders, Huxley’s insights into the organization’s beginnings are particularly valuable. Volume 2 of his memoirs begins in 1945 and describes his term as Director-General (1946-1948) and his subsequent associa- tion with the agency until 197 1.

-. UNESCO; Its Purpose and Philosophy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1947. This pamphlet is Huxley’s personal statement about the philosophy and guiding principles he believed should be incorporated into UNESCO during its early years. His attempt to propound a worldwide scientific humanism through UNESCO was criticized as atheistic and rejected as an official doctrine for the agency [23].

In the Minds of Men; UNESCO, 1946 to 1971. Paris: UNESCO, 1972. This commemorative volume was issued to mark UNESCO’s 25th anniversary. Essays by 15 contributors describe the organization’s history, contributions to intellectual cooperation, development activities, and peace initiatives.

Laves, Walter H.C. and Thomson, Charles A. UNESCO: Purpose, Progress, Prospects. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1957. This volume is a detailed and thoroughly documented review of UNESCO’s first 10 years. Laves served as a Deputy Director-General of UNESCO, and Thomson was a State Department official on the UNESCO Relations Staff. They provide a wealth of information on UNESCO’s programs, policies, activities, and problems. Appendices contain background documents, tables, and lists of affiliated organizations.

M’Bow, Amadou-Mahtar. UNESCO and the Solidarity of Nations. Paris: UNESCO, 1977-1981. This series of the collected speeches of UNESCO’s current Director-General M’Bow consists of three volumes:

1. The Spirit of Nairobi. 1977. 2. From Concertation to Consensus. 1979. 3. Building the Future. 1981.

Partan, Daniel G. Documentary Study of the Politicization of UNESCO. Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1975. This report, written by Boston University law professor Partan, is an examination of General Conference and Executive Board documents, records, and resolutions to trace actions taken against Israel. Main resolutions considered concern archaeological activity in Jerusalem, education of Arabs in the occupied territories, and Israel’s request to be included in UNESCO’s European Regional Group. The study also reviews political actions taken against Portugal, Taiwan, and South Africa, and participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization in UNESCO. The Documentary Study has an accompanying Documentary Record consisting of the official resolutions, reports, treaties, and other records relevant to the study.

114 HUGH REYNOLDS

Sewell, James P. UNESCO and World Politics; Engaging in International Relations. Prince- ton: Princeton University Press, 1975. This is a scholarly and theoretical approach to analyzing UNESCO’s role in the international community. The author uses the terms “engaging” and “disengaging” to describe the various levels and kinds of involvement in or withdrawal from international relations between individuals, governments, and non-governmental organizations. This volume provides thoughtful, if somewhat abstruse, reading and includes figures, tables, lengthy foot- notes, and an appendix on methodology.

Shuster, George N. UNESCO: Assessment and Promise. New York: Harper and Row, 1963 (Council on Foreign Relations Policy Book). The author served UNESCO in two capacities: he was chairman of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO and a member of the Executive Board. [24] He provides an evaluation and critique of the organization’s performance in light of its stated purposes and ideals. He also discusses the role of the United States in the activities and structure of UNESCO.

Sobakin, Vadim. UNESCO; Problems and Perspectives. Moscow: Novosti, 1972. The author, who served as Soviet ambassador to UNESCO, examines the agency’s programs and activities in the context of Marxist-Leninist ideology. Topics include anti- colonialism, aid to developing countries, peaceful co-existence with the West, and the value of universal membership in international organizations.

Thomas, Jean. U.N.E.S. C.O. Paris: Gallimard, 1962. This volume, written by a former Assistant Director-General of UNESCO, looks at the organization from the French point of view. The author discusses UNESCO’s Paris headquarters, the Secretariat as an international civil service, and UNESCO relations with member countries, private organizations, and the United Nations.

Torres Bodet, Jaime. Memorias. Mexico: Porrua, 1969-1974. 5 ~01s. The second Director-General of UNESCO (1948-1953), Torres Bodet was a Mexican poet and educator. In the third volume of his memoirs, he describes his years at the head of the agency and the frustrations that led him to resign his post.

MAGAZINE AND JOURNAL ARTICLES

The continuing controversy between the U.S. and UNESCO has generated a large body of periodical literature. This section lists articles from news magazines and a variety of academic, professional, and special-interest journals representing a wide spectrum of opinion. Most of these articles were published after the announcement in December, 1983, that the U.S. intended to withdraw from UNESCO, but several earlier articles have been included because of their relevance to the current crisis in U.S.-UNESCO relations.

UNESCO is unique among international organizations in the breadth of its jurisdiction and mandate to promote worldwide cooperation in education, science, culture, communication, and related fields. This bibliography attempts to incorporate both the geographical and topical diversity of the organization. The citations include commentary from Algeria, Australia, France, Great Britain, India, Italy, the Soviet Union, the United States, West Ger- many, and UNESCO itself. Writers include scientists, journalists, religious leaders, educators, librarians, political theorists, civil servants, broadcasters, and spokesmen from the Third World.

Whither Unesco? 115

“ALA Council Urges Reagan to Stick with UNESCO.” American Libraries 15 (Feb. 1984): 70.

“As We See It.” TV Guide (Jan. 12-18, 1985): A-3, A-4. Berry, John. “UNESCO: As Important As the Olympics.” Library Journal 109 (June 1,

1984): 1046. Bethell, Tom. “The Lost Civilization of UNESCO.” Poficy Review No. 24 (Spring 1983):

19-47. “Blacks Criticize Action of U.S. to Quit UNESCO.” Jet 65 (Jan. 6, 1984): 5. Cowen, R.C. “The Price of Leaving UNESCO.” Technology Review 87 (Aug./Sept.

1984): 4. David, P. “Reagan Orders Pull Out from UNESCO.” Times Educational Supplement (Lon-

don) No. 3523. (Jan. 6, 1984): 9. DeSilva, R. “UNESCO As Portent.” World Press Review 31 (June 1984): 47. “Exit from UNESCO?” America 150 (Jan. 14, 1984): 2. Fields, H. “Group Protests U.S. UNESCO Withdrawal.” Publishers Weekly 226 (Sept. 14,

1984): 76. Finger, Seymour Maxwell. “Reform or Withdrawal.” Foreign Service Journal 61 (June

1984): 18-23. Finn, Chester E. Jr. “How to Lose the War of Ideas.” Commentary 76 (Aug. 1983): 41-50.

Follow-up letter and reply: McCargar, James. “UNESCO (cont’d.).” Commentary 77 (Jan. 1984): 14+.

Gauhar, Altaf. “Reverse Charges.” South: The Third World Magazine (March 1984): 33 + . Goodwin, Irwin. “At UNESCO Politics and Science Don’t Mix.” Physics Today 37 (Aug.

1984): 68-69. -. “US-UNESCO Discord Threatens Global Study.” Physics Today 37 (Feb. 1984):

47-48. Guttenplan, D.D., Jane Whitmore and Debbie Seward. “Serving Notice to UNESCO.”

Newsweek 103 (Jan. 9, 1984): 56. Harries, Owen. The U.S. and UNESCO at a Crossroads. Heritage Foundation, Oct. 19,

1983. -. “Why UNESCO Spells Trouble.” Reader’s Digest 125 (Oct. 1984): 115-120. Hebblethwaite, Peter. “UNESCO on Trial: Director May Go.” National Catholic Reporter

20 (Jan. 20, 1984): 5. Hoggart, Richard. “Why the West Must Stay with UNESCO.” Times Educational Supple-

ment (London) No. 3523 (Jan. 6, 1984): 2. Hummel, Charles. “International Co-operation and World Problems: The Standpoint of

UNESCO.” International Social Science Journal 34 (No. 1, 1982): 79-91. Jordan, Robert S. “Boycott Diplomacy: The U.S., the U.N., and UNESCO.” Public Ad-

ministration Review 44 (July/Aug. 1984): 283-291. McHugh, Lois. “U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO.” Congressional Research Service

Review 5 (Sept. 1984): 15-17. Madison, Christopher. “Time to Get Out?” National Journal 16 (Sept. 15, 1984): 1729. Massing, Michael. “UNESCO Under Fire.” Atlantic Monthly 254 (July 1984): 89-97, Mattern, D. “Put the U.S. Back in U.N.E.S.C.O.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 40 (May

1984): 60-61. Miller, Robert. “Washington Leaves UNESCO.” MacLeans 97 (Jan. 9, 1984): 20. Mitchell, Richard. “The Necks and Minds of the People.” The Underground Grammarian 4

(Sept. 1980): 6. “More UNESCO Trouble.” Time 124 (Oct. 1, 1984): 29. “More Unfriendly Fire from the West.” Newsweek 104 (Dec. 17, 1984): 64.

116 HUGH REYNOLDS

Osolnik, Bogdan. “It is Not Only UNESCO: Reflections on the USA’s Announcement That It Will Be Pulling Out of UNESCO.” Review of InternationalAffairs 35 (March 5, 1984): 4-7.

O’Sullivan, D. “U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO a Surprise.” Chemical and Engineering News 62 (Jan. 23, 1984): 12.

“Paper Torch: Suspicious Fires at UNESCO.” Time 123 (April 2, 1984): 32. “Papermill on Probation.” Economist 289 (Dec. 10, 1983): 38. Pikas, A. “Symmetric Peace Education and UNESCO’s Potential for Promoting It.” Znter-

national Review of Education 29 (No. 3, 1983): 331-356. Radolf, A. “Government Wages UNESCO Campaign.” Editor and Publisher, The Fourth

Estate 117 (Feb. 4, 1984): 7+. -. “Is UNESCO Misunderstood?” Editor and Publisher, The Fourth Estate 117 (April

21, 1984): 7+. -. “What Happens After the U.S. Leaves UNESCO?” Editor and Publisher, The Fourth

Estate 117 (Jan. 14, 1984): 14-15. Reissen, Mary Beth. “U.S. Gripes with UNESCO: ‘Politicization,’ Budgeting.” National

Catholic Reporter 20 (Jan. 13, 1984): 3. Schaaf, Robert W. “Information Update: International Organization News.” Government

Publications Review 11 (May-June 1984): 255-258. -. “Information Update: International Organization News.” Government Publications

Review 11 (Sept.-Oct. 1984): 448. Scully, Malcolm G. “Is UNESCO Worth Saving? If It Is, At What Price?” Chronic/e of

Higher Education 28 (Feb. 29, 1984): 1 +

-. “U.S. Decision to Quit UNESCO Seen Reversible.” Chronicle of Higher Education 27 (Jan. 11, 1984): 1.

-. “The United States vs. UNESCO.” Environment 26 (March 1984): 2-3. -. “U.S. Will Leave UNESCO; Cites Anti-West Bias.” Chronicle of Higher Education

27 (Jan. 4, 1984): 1 +. “Should U.S. Withdraw From UNESCO?” U.S. News and World Report 96 (Jan. 8, 1984):

34. Sussman, Leonard R. “UNESCO: Up Against the U.S. Ultimatum,” Freedom at Issue

{July-Aug. 1984): 21-31. Tiift, Susan. “Waving Goodbye to IJNESCO.” Time 123 (Jan. 9, 1984): 17. Tran Van Dinh. “The United States Versus UNESCO.” Christian Century 101 (Feb. 29,

1984): 212-213. “The UNESCO Controversy.” World Press Review (March 1984): 37-42. Six articles excerpted from the foreign press:

l Caretto, Ennio. “The Temporary Seat.” La Stampa, Turin, Italy, (Dec. 30, 1983). l White, Sally. “Gadfly to the West.” The Age, Melbourne, Australia, (Dec. 30, 1983). l Sadmi, Ramdane. “An Imperialist Act ?” Revolution Africaine, Algiers, Algeria, (Jan.

3, 1984). l “Eyeing the Long Term.” The Statesman, New Dehli/Calcutta, India, (Jan. 4, 1984). l Dumoulin, Jerome. “Warning Gong or Death Knell?” L’Express, Paris, France, (Jan.

13, 1984). l Mertineit, Walter. “Beyond Power Rivalries.” Die Zeit, Hamburg, West Germany,

(Jan. 6, 1984). “The UNESCO Racket.” Economist 290 (Jan. 7, 1984): 14-15. “UNESCO to Permit Examination by U.S.” Editor and Publisher, The Fourth Estate 117

(March 10, 1984): 19.

Whither Unesco? 117

“UNESCO Walkout.” Nation 238 (Jan. 14, 1984): 4. “U.S. to UNESCO: Shape Up or We Leave.” U.S. News and World Report 96 (Jan. 9,

1984): 7. “U.S. Vows to Leave UNESCO.” Broadcasting 106 (Jan. 2, 1984): 42. Uranov, G. “UNESCO: Problems and Prospects.” International Affairs (Moscow) (April

1984): 107-l 15. Walsh, John. “Administration Announces Intent to Leave UNESCO.” Science 223 (Jan. 13,

1984): 150. Weisburd, Stefi. “Science Caught in U.S.-UNESCO Crossfire.” Science News 125 (Jan. 28,

1984): 55. Zagajac, Milivoje. “The Great Powers and International Organization.” Review of Interna-

tional Affairs 35 (April 25, 1984): 14-16.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS

The withdrawal announcement generated a considerable number of reports and editorial comments in the U.S. daily press. Reporters and editors around the nation tended to be critical of UNESCO because of the debates in recent years in UNESCO over control of the mass media and licensing of foreign correspondents. Many editorials attacked UNESCO and supported the Reagan administration’s decision to pull out. Other newspapers, however, were more sympathetic toward UNESCO or felt that withdrawal by the U.S. would be counterproductive and would encourage Soviet domination of the organization.

This section consists of articles, editorials, and letters to the editor concerning the U.S. departure from UNESCO. Four of the nation’s daily newspapers are represented: The Chris- tian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. The opinions reflect various points of view towards UNESCO ranging from hostility to ambivalence to active support. The attitudes expressed in these articles sometimes run counter to expected party or ideological lines. For example, Republican Representative Jim Leach of Iowa, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, opposes the withdrawal, arguing that the “weight of the evidence” does not support the decision [25]. On the other hand, author James Michener, in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, insists that the U.S. should leave UNESCO immediately because of the agency’s anti-American bias and the Director-General’s intransigence [26].

The citations are grouped under the name of the newspaper and arranged alphabetically by author or title. Each entry includes the date of publication, section, page, and column. Wherever appropriate, articles are identified as editorial, opinion, or letter to the editor.

A. Christian Science Monitor

“A Closer Look at UNESCO.” March 8, 1984: 15b. (Editorial) Cowen, Robert C. “Science Will Suffer from the American Pullout from UNESCO.” June

14, 1984: 21a, 23~. (Opinion) Leach, Jim. (U.S. Representative, Iowa-R) “Empty Chair Diplomacy.” May 29, 1984: 15~.

(Opinion) Moritz, Frederic A. “Your News from Overseas May Get Squeezed in UNESCO Rift.”

Jan. 6, 1984: 8a. (Opinion). “UNESCO Fire Destroys Documents.” March 23, 1984: 21a. “UNESCO Ponders a Future Without U.S.; Other Nations Seek Reform from Within.”

Dec. 30, 1983: 7a.

118 HUGH REYNOLDS

Winder, David. “The U.S. and the U.N.: Parting Ways Over UNESCO?” Jan. 6, 1984: 24a. (Opinion)

B. New York Times.

Ayres, B. Drummond, Jr. “U.S. to Withdraw from UNESCO Role at end of Month.” Dec. 20, 1984: Alf, A6e.

“Defogging UNESCO.” Feb. 25, 1984: A16a. (Editorial) Diene, Doudou. “Unwarranted Attack on UNESCO and Its Chief.” March 7, 1984: A22c.

(Letter to the editor) Dionne, E.J. Jr. “U.S. Leaves Room for Shift on UNESCO.” May 11, 1984: A3a. “Investigators from U.S. Start Study of UNESCO Operations.” April 3, 1984: Age. Lewis, Flora. “Airing UNESCO’s Closets.” March 1, 1984: A23a. (Opinion) -. “A Shoddy Trick.” May 10, 1984: A27a. (Opinion) Lewis, Paul. “Congress to Send Team to Study UNESCO.” March 1, 1984: A3a. -. “UNESCO Appoints a Panel to Draft Proposals for Changes in Agency.” May 25,

1984: A13a. -. “UNESCO Seeks U.S. Request for Inquiry.” March 14, 1984: A3d. “Stay in UNESCO.” Jan. 2, 1984: A23a. (Editorial) Sullivan, Walter. “Some Scientists Protest Plan to Leave UNESCO.” May 29, 1984: Clod. “Text of Statement by U.S. on Its Withdrawal from UNESCO.” Dec. 20, 1984: A6b.

C. Waif Street Journal

Crovitz, Gordon. “Auditing M’Bow: Where the Trail Should Lead.” March 8, 1984: 30~. “Feeling the Heat?” March 23, 1984: 32a. (Editorial) “UNESCO! M’Bow! Pow!” Jan. 5, 1984: 22a. (Editorial)

D. Washington Post

Buckley, William F. “A U.N. Strategy: Cast No Votes.” Jan. 27, 1984: A15f. (Opinion) Cot, Jean-Pierre. “UNESCO: Sulking Won’t Help.” Jan. 3, 1984: A17c. (Opinion) Dobbs, Michael. “UNESCO Agrees to U.S. Probe of Its Finances.” March 2, 1984: A24a. -. “Western Nations Back U.S. on UNESCO.” March 16, 1984: A25a. “Feeling the Heat at UNESCO.” March 23, 1984: A14a. “House Panel Seeks Bipartisan Group to Study U.S. Differences with UNESCO.” March

2, 1984: A24a. Michener, James. “UNESCO: Out Now.” Jan. 13, 1984: A22c. (Letter to the editor) Omang, Joanne. “UNESCO Withdrawal Announced.” Dec. 20, 1984: Alf, A28a. Pincus, Walter. “Administration Expected to Back UNESCO Probe: Support Necessary

for Congress’ Inquiry.” March 15, 1984: A3e. -. “GAO Probes UNESCO Corruption Charges.” March 9, 1984: A7a. -. “UNESCO Director to Answer U.S. Demands Next Month.” April 12, 1984: A22c. Rubin, Seymour J. “The High Cost of UNESCO.” Jan. 12, 1984: A19a. (Opinion) “UNESCO Archives Destroyed in Fire that Paris Police Describe As Arson.” March 22,

1984: A36a. “UNESCO Asserts It Is Addressing U.S. Demands.” September 9, 1984: A24a. “UNESCO Fire Did Not Damage Key Documents.” March 23, 1984: A26a.

Whither Unesco? 119

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS

Most of the official government documents concerning U.S. relations with UNESCO have been issued by three sources: the Department of State, congressional committees, and the General Accounting Office (GAO). The State Department has jurisdiction over the execu- tion of U.S. foreign policy, including the conduct of official business with international agencies such as UNESCO. Congressional committees concerned with foreign relations have oversight and legislative authority over U.S. policy toward intergovernmental organizations. GAO performs financial audits and management reviews at the request of the Congress, covering both domestic and international governmental affairs.

The first group of citations in this section consists of official publications of the State Department and articles from its monthly journal, the Department of State Bulletin. Also included are several older publications issued by the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, an advisory organization of specialists representing professional bodies interested in or involved with UNESCO activities. While the National Commission is technically autonomous, it works under the sponsorship of the State Department, and its publications are often issued as State Department documents.

Committee hearings and one staff report on U.S.-UNESCO relations make up the second type of government material. Most of these publications have been issued by the House Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs, the committee most involved in U.S. activities in international organizations. Two earlier hearings from its predecessor, the House Committee on Interna- tional Relations, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations are also included because of their relevance to the history of U.S. involvement in UNESCO.

The staff report U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO, released in April, 1984, by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a key document for anyone interested in understanding the numerous and complex issues surrounding the UNESCO controversy. It provides a thorough analysis and critique of the reasons set forth by the State Department as justification for leaving UNESCO. The report examines the arguments for and against withdrawal, discusses foreign policy implications, highlights weaknesses and contradictions in the administration’s charges, sets forth recommendations, and reprints the relevant State Department documents and correspondence.

Two months after the State Department’s departure announcement, Representative James H. Scheuer of the House Committee on Science and Technology reached an agreement with Director-General M’Bow to send a study team to UNESCO headquarters in Paris. The purpose of this group was to “seek to determine whether there was any truth in reports over the last several years of large-scale inefficiency, mismanagement, and corruption inside UNESCO’s secretariat” [27]. The study team consisted of three auditors from the General Accounting Office. This leads into the final section of this bibliography.

The mission of the General Accounting Office is to perform legal and financial audits, conduct management reviews and program evaluations, and provide legislative analysis and advice to the Congress. During the past decade, GAO has published a series of reports analyzing management and budget issues in the United Nations, UNESCO, and other international organizations. The GAO reports listed in this section all refer to UNESCO in whole or in part.

The GAO report requested by Representative Scheuer in February 1984 was completed at the end of November 1984. While GAO does not issue recommendations to international organizations, the report was critical of UNESCO’s management, personnel, and budgeting operations. It is unknown what effect this report will have on the ultimate fate of UNESCO, but it is unlikely to be the last word on this troubled, yet vital, international organization.

120 HUGH REYNOLDS

The entries in this section are arranged aIphabetically by agency or committee. Ail documents of the Department of State and the Congress are published by the Government Printing Office in Washington, DC, unless otherwise indicated. A11 GAO reports are published by the U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. Superintendent of Documents call numbers are provided for most of the documents.

A. U.S. Department of State

A Critical Assessment of U.S. Purticipation in UNESCO. (Report of a Special Meeting of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, June 1-3, 1982.) Department of State Publication No. 9297, 1982.

Gross, Ronald, and Murphy, Judith. United States and UNESCO, Challenges for the Future. (Report of the Special National Conference of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, 1966.) Washington, D.C.: Academy for Educational Development, 1967. (S 5.48:Un 3/10)

25 Years of UNESCO, Twenty-five Successful Projects. 1971. (S 5.48:T 91) “U.S. International Activities in Science and Technology.” (Ronald Reagan’s message to

Congress, Feb. 17, 1984.) 84 Department of State Bulletin (April 1984): 67. “U.S. Notifies UNESCO of Intent to Withdraw.” 84 Department of State Bulletin (Feb.

1984): 41-42. U.S./UNESCO Poiicy Review. Feb. 29, 1984.

B. U.S. Congress

House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Review of U.S. Parti~~pQtion in UNESCO. Hearings and Markup. 97th Cong., 1st Sess.

1981, (Y 4.F 76fl:Un 35/38) Review of U.S. Preparation for the 2980 UNESCO General Conference. Hearing. 96th

Cong., 2nd Sess. 1980. (Y 4.F 76/l:Un 35/23) U.S. Role in the United Nations. Hearings. 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 1983. (Y 4.F 76/l:Un

35/64) U.S. Withdrawalfrom UNESCO. Hearings. 98th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1984. (Y 4.F 76/l:

Un 35/63/984-2) U.S. Withdrawat from UNESCO: Report of a Staff Study Mission, Feb. 10-23, 1984.

Committee Print. 98th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1984. (Y 4.F 76/l:Un 35’63) UNESCO and Freedom ofrnform~tion. Hearing. 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 1979. (Y 4.F

76/1:Un 35110) House. Committee on International Relations.

UNESCO: Challenges and Opportunities for the United Sfates. Hearing. 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1976. (Y 4.In 8/16:Un 3519)

Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Activities and Procedures of UNESCO. Hearing. 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 1963. (Y 4.F

76/2:Un 35/10)

C. U.S. General Accounting Office

Dekying U.S. Payments to ~nternfftio~~~ ~rguni~~tions May Not Be the Best Means to Promote Budget Restraints. Feb. 15, 1983. (GA l.l3:ID-83-26)

improvements Needed in UNESC~s management, Personnel, Fin~n~iat, and Budgeting Practices. Nov. 30, 1984. (GA 1,13:NSIAD-85-32)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. I.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12.

13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Whither Unesco? 121

Improving the ~~n~g~rnent and Coordination of Reviews, Inspections, and Eva~M~tions in the U.N. System. Nov. 19, 1980. (GA 1:13:ID-81-11~

U.S. P~rti~ip~ti~n in Intern~tionffl Organizations. June 24, 1977. (GA l.l3:ID-77-36) U.S. Participation in International Organizations: An Update. Aug. 10, 1979. (GA

1.13 : ID-79-26) UNESCO Programing and Budgeting Need Greater U.S. Attention. Sept. 14, 1919. (GA

l.l3:1D-79-12)

NOTES

Schultz, George P. “U.S. Notifies UNESCO of Intent to Withdraw,” Department of State Bulletin 84 (Feb. 1984), pp. 41-42. Ayres, Jr., 3. Drummond. “U.S. to Withdraw from UNESCO Role at End of Month,” New York Times, 20 December 1984, pp. Alf, A6e. Yearbook offhe United Nations 1946-47. (Lake Success, NY: Department of Public Information, United Na- tions, 1947), p. 703. Approved Programme and Budget for 2981-1983. (Paris: UNESCO, 1981); Draft Medium-Term Plan (1984-1989) (Paris: UNESCO, 1982); Hajnal, Peter I. Guide to UNESCO (New York: Oceana Publications, 1983), pp. 60, 64. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO: Report of a Staff Study Mission, February 10-23, 1984, Committee Print. 98th Congress, 2nd Session, (Washington: GPO, 1984), p. 6. Ibid., pp. 17-18, 32. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. Review of U.S. Preparation for the 1980 UNESCO General Conferenee, Hearing, 96th Congress, 2nd Session, (Washington: GPO, 1981), p. 80. Massing, Michael. “UNESCO Under Fire,” At/antic Monthly 254 (July 1984), p. 97. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO, pp. 28-30. “Investigators from U.S. Start Study of UNESCO Operations,” New York Times, 3 April 1984, p. A9e. UNESCO. International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems. Many Voices, One World, Communication and Society Today and Tomorrow: Towards a New, More Just and More Efficient World In- formation and Communication Order. (MacBride Commission Report) (Paris: UNESCO, 1980). For a good in-depth treatment of this subject, see The United States and theDebate on the World “Information Order.” Jonathan F. Gunter, Project Director, et al., (New York: Academy for Educational Development, Inc., 1978). It includes a 19-page classified bibliography on the NWIO. US. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO, pp. 28-30. Ibid., p. 27. Ibid., p. 46. Partan, Daniel G. Documentary Study of the Politicization of UNESCO (Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1975), p. 9. Massing, “UNESCO Under Fire,” p. 92. Ibid. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Foreign Affairs. U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO, p, 28. Sullivan, Walter. “Some Scientists Protest Plan to Leave UNESCO,” New York Times, 29 May 1984, p. Clod. Massing, “UNESCO Under Fire,” p. 90. Hajnal, Guide to UNESCO, pp. 165-178. Ibid., p. 13. Ibid., p. 25, 326. Leach, Jim. “Empty Chair Diplomacy,” Christian Science Monitor, 28 May 1984, p. 1%. Michener, James. “UNESCO: Out Now,” Washington Post, 13 January 1984, p. A22c. Lewis, Paul. “Congress to Send Team to Study UNESCO,” New York Times, 1 March 1984, p. A3a.