No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Soviet Attitude toward UNESCO
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
Extract
The attitude of the Soviet Union toward the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), among the specialized agencies of the United Nations, is particularly interesting because this organization is distinguished by the wide range of its activities and because the U.S.S.R. unexpectedly decided to join UNESCO after a virtual boycott of nine years. Certain technical aspects of UNESCO also give it an unusual position among international bodies. Like other organizations, it can accomplish little except with the approval of the member states. It is, however, less formal in its procedure than the United Nations, and its decisions are not subject to the veto.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The IO Foundation 1954
References
1 Cf. Christian Science Monitor, October 27, 1945; New York Times, October 31, November 2, 7, 12, 1945; UNESCO Preparatory Commission, Conference for the Establishment of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, London, Document ECO/CONF./29, 06, 1946, p. 90Google Scholar.
2 ibid., p. 93
3 Huxley, Julian, UNESCO, Its Purpose and Its Philosophy, Preparatory Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO/c/6, 09 15, 1946), p. 7Google Scholar.
4 ibid., p. 61.
5 UNESCO General Conference, Records… (1st session), United Nations, p. 88 f., 81 f., 125Google Scholar.
6 New York Times, November 23, 1946.
7 Economic and Social Council, Official Records (1st year 2d session), p. 114Google Scholar.
8 Ibid. (3d session), p. 155.
9 Ibid. (2d year, 4th session), p. 188. In the committee of the General Assembly charged with examination of the budgets of the specialized agencies, Soviet representatives have objected to close coordination of the activities of the UN and the specialized agencies, but, as far as I have been able to determine, did not explicitly refer to UNESCO. Cf., General Assembly, Joint Meeting of the Joint 2d and 3d Committees and the 5th Committee, Official Records (2d session), p. 56–57Google Scholar; ibid. (4th session), p. 6. In a further attempt to restrict UNESCO the Soviet delegate to ECOSOC, Morozov, in 1947 unsuccessfully opposed approval of the admission of Austria to UNESCO.
10 UNESCO General Conference, Records…: Proceedings (2d session), p. 100 fGoogle Scholar.
11 In 1947 Hungary's attitude could almost be characterized as one of humility. Dr. Vambery, her delegate, expressed the hope that admission to UNESCO would be the road to admission to the UN. Ibid., p. 48. Later, another delegate (Ferenczi) emphasized that the Hungarian delegation agreed with that of Poland on steps against war propaganda because “all the countries that are taking part in a great movement of liberation” wanted to ward off a new war, not because of the dictation of a foreign power, Ibid., p. 264.
12 It will be recalled that Lebanon, as a member of the Arab League, was at that time engaged in a conflict with the Israelis. The decision to hold the conference in Beirut had, however, been made in 1947, and the United States and other countries had declined to revoke the choice after the start of the conflict. The Polish statement was contained in a telegram read to the seventh plenary meeting. UNESCO General Conference, Records…; Proceedings (3d session), p. 85Google Scholar.
13 Ibid., p. 224. It was decided that it would be improper to accept a nomination from a delegation which was not actually present.
14 UNESCO General Conference, Records…: Proceedings (4th session), p. 100Google Scholar.
15 New Times, March 29, 1950, p. 11–12. Strictly speaking, this was not the first reference to UNESCO in the Russian press; on February 9, 1949, an article in the New Times discussed the trial in Lebanon of participants in a “popular peace demonstration” which had taken place in front of the building where a session of the “so-called organization of the United Nations for education, science, and culture was taking place.” The emphasis in this article, however, was on the activities of the Lebanese “repression” of popular movements, not on UNESCO.
16 UNESCO Conference, Records…: Proceedings (5th session), p. 175–177Google Scholar; see also p. 46–48, 183–184.
17 Unesco Features, September 1, 1950.
18 Copies of these letters are attached to the record of the 24th session of the UNESCO Executive Board, November 9, 1950 (mimeographed). I am indebted to the New York office of UNESCO for the opportunity to examine this and other material pertaining to the implementation of the resolution on Korea.
19 UNESCO General Conference, Records…: Proceedings (6th session), p. 49Google Scholar.
20 Economic and Social Council, Official Records (7th year 12th session), 468th Meeting.
21 Ibid. (13th session), 518th Meeting.
22 UNESCO Document 7C/ADM/34, November 12, 1952. (Recommendations of the Executive Board), p. 3.
23 Pravda, December 8, 1952, p. 4; Izvestiya, December 7, 1952, p. 4.
24 On July 3, 1953, in the plenary meeting of the second extraordinary session, the General Conference rejected the accusations made against UNESCO in the satellite notes, but urged them to reconsider their announcement of withdrawal from membership. UNESCO General Conference, Records…: Resolutions and Proceedings (2d extraordinary session), p. 22Google Scholar.
25 A report of Poland to UNESCO in 1951 (UNESCO General Conference, Records… [6th session], p. 215Google Scholar), merely points out that Poland did not take part in the third General conference because it was held in a state at war.
26 UNESCO General Conference, Records…: Proceedings (4th session), p. 134–135Google Scholar.
27 Ibid., Records… (6th session), p. 113, 216.
28 Cf. Borkenau, Franz, The Communist International (London: Faber and Faber, Ltd., 1938), p. 373Google Scholar; Selznick, Philip, The Organizational Weapon: A Study of Bolshevik Strategy and Tactics (Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1952), p. 167 ff., 197 ffGoogle Scholar.
29 UNESCO General Conference, Records… Proceedings (7th session), p. 8–9Google Scholar.
30 News: A Fortnightly Searchlight on World Events (Moscow), No. 10 (11, 1951), p. 6–9Google Scholar.
31 See the allegation that a UNESCO-sponsored edition of the works of Balzac was being distorted for American propaganda (Soviet Literature [Moscow], #4, 1952, p. 178–179Google Scholar) and the report that the municipal council of Como (Italy) had rejected the proposal to establish a UNESCO-sponsored American “atomic centre” (News, #3, 02, 1952, p. 3Google Scholar).
32 UNESCO General Conference, Records…: Proceedings (5th session), p. 47Google Scholar.
34 E.g., Fuller, Dale, “Soviet Policy in the United Nations,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 05, 1949Google Scholar. My generalizations on the Soviet attitude toward intellectual contacts are based in large part on such recent studies as Barghoorn's, Frederick C.The Soviet Image of the United States: A Study in Distortion (New York, 1950)Google Scholar; Inkeles', AlexPublic Opinion in Soviet Russia: A Study in Mass Persuasion (Cambridge, 1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Counts', George S. and Lodge's, LuciaThe Country of the Blind: The Soviet System of Mind Control (Boston, 1949)Google Scholar.
35 Uchitel'skaya Gazeta, January 20, 1951. The quotations are taken from the complete translation of this article which appeared in the Current Digest of the Soviet Press, March 10, 1951.
36 A. Kravchenko, “Pod flagom OON (chtopokazala ‘mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya po voprosam bibliografii’ v Parizhe)” [Under the flag of the UNO (what the “international conference on bibliographical questions” in Paris showed)] Bibliotekar', No. 1, 1952, p. 42–45Google Scholar.
37 Pravda, November 30, 1952, p. 4.
- 11
- Cited by