The Strategies that International Organizations Should Adopt in Response to the Behavior of Major Powers' "Withdrawal From Groups" - Taking UNESCO as an Example

Abstract: In the context of global changes, the behavior of major countries "withdrawing from international organizations" has become a common challenge in the development process of international organizations. The strategies adopted by international organizations to deal with such behavior are related to the concentration of resources they need and the consistency of the positions of the major powers within the organization. The UNESCO adopted different types of response strategies when facing the "withdrawal from international organizations" actions of the United States in different periods. When the Reagan administration of the United States withdrew from international organizations in 1983, UNESCO was unable to obtain alternative resources due to the high concentration of funds and professional network resources it needed, and the positions of other major powers were relatively consistent with those of the United States. Therefore, it adopted an adaptive response strategy. When the Trump administration of the United States withdrew from international organizations in 2017, UNESCO was able to obtain alternative resources more easily due to the relatively low concentration of funds and professional network resources it needed, and the positions of other major powers were less consistent with those of the United States. Thus, it adopted a resistance response strategy. Exploring the differences in the strategies adopted by international organizations to deal with the "withdrawal from international organizations" actions of major countries and the underlying logic is of great significance for China to more effectively respond to the "withdrawal from international organizations" actions of other major countries. 

I. The Presentation of the Problem

Currently, the world is undergoing a major transformation unseen in a century, and international organizations are also in a period of turmoil and transformation. Since the second term of the Trump administration, the United States has withdrawn from multiple important international organizations within a short period of time. On January 20, 2025, the United States announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization (WHO); on February 4, the United States announced its withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), stopped providing support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and simultaneously initiated a review of the United States' membership in UNESCO (hereinafter referred to as "UNESCO"). In the context of frequent "withdrawal" by certain major countries and the prevalence of unilateralism, international organizations are facing severe reform pressure and even an existential crisis.

Under the pressure of major countries' demands for "group withdrawal", international organizations often adopt different response strategies. According to the definitions of scholars such as Hylke Dijkstra and Gisela Hirschmann, based on the degree to which international organizations accept the policy demands of the withdrawing countries in terms of their discourse and actions, the strategies of international organizations in responding to major countries' "group withdrawal" can be divided into adaptation strategies and resistance strategies. In terms of discourse, adaptation strategies refer to international organizations openly emphasizing the rationality and acceptability of the policy demands of the withdrawing countries, acknowledging the shortcomings of the organization, and announcing that they will take reform measures, etc.; while resistance strategies refer to international organizations denying the rationality of the accusations of the withdrawing countries, stating that the withdrawal behavior of member states lacks legitimacy. In terms of action, adaptation strategies refer to international organizations adjusting their own tasks, policies and organizational structure to actively respond to the policy demands of the withdrawing countries; while resistance strategies refer to international organizations maintaining strategic silence on the policy demands of the withdrawing countries, or taking actions to hinder the withdrawing countries from achieving their own interests, or taking measures to protect the organization's autonomy to avoid being harmed by the "group withdrawal" behavior.

From empirical facts, when faced with the "withdrawal" actions of the US government, UNESCO adopted different types of response strategies. In response to the "withdrawal" action of the Reagan administration in 1983, UNESCO adopted an adaptive strategy. In terms of discourse, it acknowledged its own shortcomings and stated that it would carry out internal organizational reforms; in terms of action, it took a series of reform measures and actively responded to the concerns and demands raised by the Reagan administration. However, in response to the "withdrawal" action of the Trump administration in 2017, UNESCO adopted a resistance strategy. In terms of discourse, both Irina Bokova and Audrey Azoulay, the two directors-general, expressed dissatisfaction with the US's "withdrawal" behavior; in terms of action, they maintained strategic silence regarding the US's policy demands and at the same time promoted a strategic transformation of the organization to maintain its autonomy.

When faced with the "withdrawal" actions of major countries, why do international organizations sometimes adopt an adaptive strategy and sometimes a resistant strategy? This is the research question of this article. Regarding this issue, previous studies mainly provided the following three types of analytical perspectives: First, the perspective of international organization administrative leaders, who believe that the differences in the personalities and capabilities of international organization administrative leaders lead to the adoption of different strategies; second, the perspective of international organization institutional characteristics, which holds that the degree of authorization of member states to the international organization, the level of formalization of the international organization, and other institutional characteristics will affect the ability of the international organization to take practical actions to respond to the challenge of "withdrawal"; third, the perspective of the consistency of the main major countries' positions within the international organization, which holds that whether other major countries within the organization maintain the same position as the withdrawing country is a key factor affecting the choice of the international organization between adapting to or resisting the policy of the withdrawing country.

Overall, these three types of analytical perspectives have certain explanatory power for the strategies adopted by international organizations in response to major powers' "withdrawal". However, they also have their limitations. Specifically, the first type of analytical perspective focuses on the initiative of the administrative leaders of international organizations, while the second type emphasizes the restrictive effect of the initial institutional conditions on international organizations. In reality, the response of international organizations to major powers' "withdrawal" is a political game between the international organization and the withdrawing country as well as other major powers. When a major power withdraws from an international organization, it will inevitably cause damage to the resources needed for the survival and development of the international organization. In this situation, whether the international organization can obtain alternative resources from other major powers is particularly crucial. This depends on two factors: one is whether other major powers support the withdrawing country; the other is whether the resources needed by the international organization are concentrated in the withdrawing country. It can be seen that the third type of analytical perspective has better grasped the factor of whether the positions of other major powers and the withdrawing country within the international organization are consistent, but it has ignored the factor of whether the resources needed by the international organization are concentrated in the withdrawing country.

In view of this, this article holds that the concentration of resources required by international organizations and the consistency of the positions of major powers within the organizations jointly affect the space available for international organizations to obtain alternative resources, and thereby influence their strategic choices in response to the "withdrawal" of major powers. In 1983, the concentration of funds and professional network resources required by UNESCO was relatively high, and the positions of other major powers were relatively consistent with those of the United States, making it difficult for UNESCO to obtain alternative resources and thus adopting an adaptive response strategy. In 2017, the concentration of funds and professional network resources required by UNESCO was relatively low, and the consistency of positions among other major powers was lower than that of the United States, making it easier for UNESCO to obtain alternative resources and thus adopting a resistant response strategy.

II. Theoretical Analysis Framework for International Organization Strategy Selection

Based on the resource dependence theory of international organizations, this paper, on the basis of the existing "unanimity of major powers' positions" analytical perspective, adds the variable of international organization resource concentration, and constructs a theoretical analysis framework of "resource concentration + unanimity of major powers' positions" to explain the strategic choices of international organizations in response to the "withdrawal" behavior of major powers.

(1) The types of strategies adopted by international organizations in response to "withdrawal" behavior 

When international organizations encounter challenges such as "demonstrations of withdrawal" by major powers, they mainly adopt two coping strategies: adaptation and resistance. Both of these strategies are reflected in their words and actions.

On the one hand, international organizations can respond to the "withdrawal" behavior of major powers through adaptive or resistant discourse. Generally speaking, international organizations will establish public relations departments and have websites to publicly disclose their data and policies and other information. The discourse they use to deal with the withdrawal behavior of member states will be reflected in official texts and leaders' speeches and other materials. In addition, international organization leaders can also make public speeches, accept media interviews, or respond through personal social media. The adaptive strategy discourse of international organizations is manifested as: openly emphasizing the effectiveness and legitimacy of the policy demands of the withdrawing countries, acknowledging the shortcomings of the organization, and even announcing reform measures, etc. The resistant strategy discourse of international organizations is expressed as: denying the accusations of the withdrawing countries, stating that the withdrawal behavior of member states lacks legitimacy, and even criticizing the withdrawing countries.

On the other hand, international organizations can take adaptive or resistant actions to deal with the "withdrawal" behavior of major powers. Although international organizations are established by member states, they do not simply act according to the wishes of the member states. International organizations can gain authority from their moral stance, professional knowledge, and the tasks assigned by member states, thereby obtaining the space for autonomous actions. The adaptive strategy actions of international organizations are manifested as actively responding to the direct demands raised by member states when they withdraw, adjusting their own tasks, policies, and organizational structures. On the contrary, the resistant strategy actions mainly have three manifestations: first, maintaining strategic silence on the behavior of member states' withdrawal, in order to avoid accepting the policy requirements of the withdrawing countries; second, taking actions to hinder the withdrawing countries from achieving their interests; third, establishing more professional and standardized action channels, in order to maintain the autonomy of the organization and protect it from the harm of "withdrawal" behavior.

(2) The Resource Dependence Theory of International Organizations

From the perspective of the resource dependence theory of international organizations, the "withdrawal" of major powers from an international organization is a process of resource competition among the international organization, the withdrawing country, and other member states. Whether the international organization can obtain alternative resources outside the withdrawing country is the main factor influencing its choice of different strategies. 

The resource dependence theory is an important school of thought in organizational theory. This theory holds that no organization is completely independent and self-sufficient. Organizations rely on the external environment to obtain the key resources necessary for their survival and development. Scholars such as Michael Barnett and Rafael Biermann have applied the resource dependence theory to the study of international organizations. Such research emphasizes that the decisions of international organizations need to take into account their resource dependence relationships, and strike a balance between maintaining their own autonomy and securing the necessary resources. In the face of the withdrawal of major powers, international organizations need to adopt strategies to adapt to changes in the external environment, or take active actions to manage and control the degree of their resource dependence on the external environment. The reasons are as follows: on the one hand, international organizations cannot fully control all the resources necessary for their survival, such as financial, material, information and reputation resources; on the other hand, the external environment in which international organizations operate is uncertain and affects the continuous and stable supply of their necessary resources.

Furthermore, there are three key factors that are crucial for studying the resource dependence of international organizations: the significance of resources for the operation and survival of international organizations, the degree of control that member states have over this resource allocation and usage, and the existence of alternative resources.

Firstly, the significance of resources for the operation of international organizations mainly depends on two factors: the quantity of certain resources that the international organization requires, and the criticality of the resources in enabling the organization to function effectively. Specifically for UNESCO, the key resources on which its survival and development rely mainly include funds and professional networks. For UNESCO, funds not only cover the expenses of its administrative institutions and personnel, but also support the implementation of its major work plans, and serve as the material basis for its response to sudden crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. At the level of professional network resources, UNESCO is regarded as a "thought laboratory, information exchange center, international rule maker and supervisor". It relies on its extensive regional, sub-regional or intra-regional offices, national committees of member states, non-governmental organizations in the fields of education, science, culture, communication and information, and "ambassadors" of celebrities, forming a rather unique international intellectual cooperation network. The main activities of UNESCO are: formulating international normative documents, holding various governmental or non-governmental international conferences, organizing professional discussions, seminars and training courses, conducting personnel and information exchanges, implementing pilot projects, and launching international movements to promote literacy and cultural heritage protection, etc. As the former director of the National Committee of UNESCO in China, Yang Haibo once pointed out, the advantage of UNESCO does not lie in providing a large amount of financial and material assistance to member states, but in its ability to conduct extensive intellectual cooperation. 

Secondly, regarding the control situation of resource allocation and usage by member states, if a certain resource is crucial for the survival of an international organization and the ownership and usage rights of this resource are concentrated in the hands of a specific member state, then the degree of dependence of the international organization on this member state is relatively high; conversely, if the important resources necessary for the survival and operation of the international organization are distributed relatively evenly, then the degree of resource dependence of the international organization on a specific member state is relatively low. Inter-governmental international organizations are special types of organizations created by sovereign states and composed of sovereign states as members. Member states are the key actors in allocating the resources needed by the international organization. 

Finally, the space available for international organizations to obtain alternative resources will affect their resource dependency situation, and thereby influence the extent and degree to which their behaviors are restricted. Even if a certain type of resource is crucial for the survival of an international organization and a specific member state controls the ownership and usage rights of such resources, if the international organization can obtain such resources from other channels, then the scope and degree of its behaviors being restricted will be significantly reduced. As mentioned above, member states are the key actors controlling the resources needed by international organizations. Therefore, when an international organization faces pressure from a specific member state to withdraw and is unable to obtain alternative resources, its behaviors will be constrained by that specific member state, and thus it will have to adapt to the policy requirements of that specific member state. Conversely, if the international organization can obtain alternative resources, then the withdrawal of a specific member state will have a relatively limited impact on its behaviors, and it will be able to resist the policies of that specific member state.

(III) Theoretical Analysis Framework

According to the resource dependence theory, the strategic choices of international organizations regarding the "withdrawal" of major powers mainly depend on the size of the space for obtaining alternative resources. This is mainly influenced by two factors: the concentration of resources required by the international organization and the consistency of the position of the major power.

On the one hand, the concentration of resources required by international organizations will affect the existence of alternative resources. Resource concentration refers to whether the ownership and usage rights of important resources are controlled by a few or a single member state. If the resources necessary for the survival and operation of international organizations are relatively concentrated in the hands of a certain member state, and that member state intends to withdraw from the international organization, then the alternative resources that the international organization can obtain will be relatively limited. This article measures the resource concentration of UNESCO by the distribution of funds and professional network resources relative to the withdrawing country. If the withdrawing country is the main provider of UNESCO's budget funds and also the main partner of its professional network, then its resource concentration is high; otherwise, it is low.

On the other hand, the consistency of the positions of major powers also affects the situation of international organizations obtaining alternative resources. Take funds as an example. If the policies of other major powers are in line with those of the withdrawing countries, then international organizations will find it difficult to persuade other major powers to provide alternative resources, and thus have to yield to the withdrawing countries. On the contrary, if there are differences in positions between other major powers and the withdrawing countries, and if they are willing to provide more funds to the international organization, then the international organization will have the ability to resist the policies of the withdrawing countries. 

In summary, the concentration of resources required by international organizations and the consistency of the positions of the major powers within the organizations jointly affect the space available for international organizations to obtain alternative resources, and thereby influence the strategies that international organizations adopt in response to the "withdrawal" actions of major powers. 

Based on this, this paper derives the following two theoretical hypotheses that require empirical verification: First, when the concentration of resources required by an international organization is high, and the consistency of the positions of other major countries and the withdrawing countries within the organization is also high, the space for the organization to obtain alternative resources is limited, and thus it is more likely to adopt an adaptive strategy in response to the "withdrawal" behavior of major countries; Second, when the concentration of resources required by the international organization is low, and the consistency of the positions of other major countries and the withdrawing countries within the organization is also low, the space for the organization to obtain alternative resources is larger, and thus it is more likely to adopt a resistant strategy in response to the "withdrawal" behavior of major countries.

This article will, based on the principle of maximum similarity and dissimilarity, select two cases of the UNESCO's responses to the US government's "withdrawal" in 1983 and 2017 for comparative analysis, and conduct empirical tests on the above theoretical assumptions. The case selection of this article has certain advantages: Firstly, the policy demands of the US for both withdrawals to UNESCO were similar, which ruled out the possibility of different response strategies adopted by international organizations due to differences in the policy demands of the withdrawing countries; Secondly, both times the US withdrew from UNESCO, and this excluded the influence of internal factors of the international organization on the strategy choice.

III. Adaptive Strategy: UNESCO's Response to the "Withdrawal" Actions of the Reagan Administration

On December 28, 1983, then US Secretary of State George Shultz wrote to the then Director-General of UNESCO, Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow, stating that the United States would withdraw from UNESCO one year later. In the letter, Shultz criticized UNESCO for "serving the political purposes of individual member states", "lack of efficiency in management", and pointed out problems with its budget.

(1) Specific manifestations of UNESCO's adaptive strategies

In response to the "withdrawal" actions of the Reagan administration, UNESCO was unable to obtain alternative resources due to its high concentration of required resources and the high consistency of positions among other major powers within the organization and the United States. Therefore, it had to adopt an adaptive strategy. In terms of discourse, UNESCO acknowledged its shortcomings and stated that it would carry out internal organizational reforms. In terms of action, it took a series of reform measures and actively responded to the concerns and demands raised by the United States.

In response to this decision by the United States, Director-General Mbou acknowledged the imperfections of UNESCO in his reply to Schultz, stating that "we ourselves are clearly aware that we must constantly improve the methods used by the organization to formulate plans, make decisions, implement and evaluate activities". At the same time, he hoped that the United States would remain to uphold the principle of universality. In terms of actions, UNESCO established a reform agency and took a series of reform measures to respond to the policy concerns and demands expressed by the United States when it withdrew. In May 1984, the UNESCO Executive Board established a temporary committee consisting of 13 member states to provide reform suggestions, review UNESCO's projects, as well as administrative and budgetary issues; in the same month, Director-General Mbou also announced the establishment of five working groups to investigate activities in areas such as budget, recruitment and staff management, project evaluation, public information, and feasibility analysis, and to report to the Director-General.

In response to the policy concerns raised by the United States that UNESCO "serves the political purposes of individual member states" and is "overly politicized", UNESCO has responded positively in terms of project arrangement, the Palestine-Israel issue, and freedom of speech. First, UNESCO focused its projects on its core mission areas. The draft project budget for 1986-1987 instructed the Secretariat to prioritize projects when recommending them, choosing those that focused on core areas (i.e., education, science, culture, and communication) and could receive high support. At the same time, for projects in controversial areas such as disarmament and collective human rights, the Director-General convened an advisory group to review "whether they received widespread support". Secondly, UNESCO adopted a relatively moderate attitude towards the Palestine-Israel issue. For example, during this period, the project/budget resolutions no longer mentioned terms such as "PLO" and "National Liberation Movement". Finally, regarding the issue of freedom of speech that the United States was concerned about, UNESCO gave higher priority to the international communication development plan (IPDC) proposed by the United States, while downplaying the "New World Information and Communication Order" requested by third-world countries, referring to it as "a gradual and continuous process".

In response to the United States' policy concern that the management of UNESCO is "inefficient", UNESCO has also taken proactive reform measures within itself. In terms of personnel management, the Director-General announced the simplification of UNESCO's personnel procedures, reorganized the personnel bureau, and delegated the authority for personnel appointments at all levels to the Deputy Directors-General, Assistant Directors-General, and the Personnel Bureau. In terms of administrative management, one of the five working groups established by the Director-General proposed reform suggestions on the policy goal of "delegating the Director-General's authority to the Deputy Directors-General and the authority of the headquarters to the local offices". In terms of activity evaluation, the Director-General abandoned his previous opposition and stated that he would strengthen the central evaluation department and establish an interdepartmental evaluation committee. 

In response to the concerns of the United States regarding budget management, UNESCO actively adopted most of the suggestions from the United States. Although the draft project budget for 1984-1985 had already been approved, it still stated that the 1986-1987 project budget draft would, in principle, adopt a "zero growth" plan. Regarding the United States' request for "improving budget information transparency", the UNESCO Executive Board approved a resolution, requiring the Director-General to provide internal documents to member states regarding the rationality of the budget. In addition, the Director-General also accepted other budget management technical requirements proposed by the United States, including implementing the principle of constant value in US dollars, retaining appropriation reserves to cover inflation costs, and calculating currency floating accounts, etc.

Based on the theoretical framework presented earlier, the reasons why UNESCO adopted an adaptive response strategy can be analyzed from two aspects: resource concentration and consistency of the position of major powers.

(2) High concentration of resources 

In 1983, when the Reagan administration of the United States took the action of withdrawing from UNESCO, the organization had a relatively high concentration of funds and professional network resources. At that time, the United States was the main provider of UNESCO's budget funds and also the main partner in its organizational professional network.

In terms of funds, in 1983 UNESCO was highly dependent on the funds provided by the United States. The financial income of UNESCO could be mainly classified into the following three categories: the fixed membership fee (assessed contribution) calculated based on the payment capacity of member states, the voluntary contributions based on the principle of voluntariness, and other income obtained through services and other means. From 1981 to 1983, the fixed membership fee income of UNESCO accounted for 95.52% of the total financial income, and the United States contributed as much as 25% of the fixed membership fees. That is to say, the fixed membership fees paid by the United States accounted for approximately 23.88% of UNESCO's financial income during this period. 

In terms of professional network resources, the United States is also a major partner of UNESCO. On one hand, in the early 1980s, the proportion of American staff in UNESCO was relatively high. In July 1982, among the long-term staff of UNESCO, there were 87 Americans, ranking first among all member states. In 1984, the then Director-General Mbowe pointed out that 40% of the short-term contract employees and consultants of UNESCO were Americans. On the other hand, the United States was an initiator and partner of important conventions, initiatives and projects of UNESCO at that time. For example, in the field of culture, the United States cooperated with UNESCO to promote the establishment of an international mechanism for the protection of world cultural heritage. The term "World Heritage" can be traced back to the "World Heritage Trust Fund" proposed by the United States in 1965. Later, the United States used the platform of UNESCO to promote its concept and management model of "equal emphasis on natural and cultural heritage". Eventually, in 1970, UNESCO adopted the "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" (Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property); in 1972, UNESCO adopted the "Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage" (Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage). The United States not only ratified these two conventions first, but also introduced the "Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act" and other measures to support them. In addition, the "Man and the Biosphere" project in the field of science, and the international communication and dissemination development plan in the field of communication and dissemination, all could not do without the participation of the United States.

(3) The positions of major countries are relatively consistent.

In 1983, when the United States first withdrew from UNESCO, the organization not only had a high degree of resource concentration, but also other major powers maintained a high degree of consistency with the US position, and were unwilling to fill the resource gap caused by the US's "withdrawal". Although the US government did not formally consult its Western allies before announcing the plan to withdraw from UNESCO, these major powers still maintained a high degree of consistency with the US position. The Western Information Group (WIG) held the same position on the issue of UNESCO reform, and all countries jointly opposed the then Director-General Mbowe. Even some countries directly followed the US in "withdrawing", which all reflected their consistent position. 

Firstly, the major Western countries coordinated their positions on the issue of the reform of UNESCO. On January 10, 1984, 24 Western developed countries including the United States, Japan, West Germany, France, and the United Kingdom formed the Western Information Group Working Group. On March 15, 1984, the Western Information Group submitted a working document titled "The Crisis of UNESCO" to the Director-General. The document stated that UNESCO had several problems, such as an imbalance in power between the secretariat and the national representative institutions, a lack of control over funds by the major contributing countries, politicization issues, and a lack of management of projects and budgets. These problems were similar to the accusations made by the United States against UNESCO. Subsequently, the Western Information Group also proposed specific proposals for the reform of UNESCO.

Secondly, the then Director-General of UNESCO, Mbou, encountered unanimous opposition from Western countries. After the United States announced its withdrawal, Western countries accused Mbou of expelling the Western employees of UNESCO and of being "biased in appointing personnel" in key positions. In 1986, Japan, as the largest contributor of membership fees to UNESCO after the United States' withdrawal, explicitly stated that if Mbou were to be re-elected, Japan would consider withdrawing from UNESCO. Other Western countries such as West Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium also expressed the same stance. Even third-world countries did not strongly support Mbou's bid for a third term.

Finally, some countries followed the actions of the United States, threatening to "withdraw" or even taking actual actions. Since the United States announced its withdrawal from UNESCO, the United Kingdom, West Germany, and several other Western countries also informed the then Director-General Mbo that if there were no signs of improvement in the operation of UNESCO by the end of 1984, they would consider whether to continue their membership. In July 1984, the Minister of Education and Science of the Netherlands wrote to the Director-General, stating that considering the statement of the United States' withdrawal, the Netherlands would also review its participation in UNESCO. In November 1984, the United Kingdom also issued a statement indicating that it would withdraw from UNESCO and accused it of "having faced problems of inefficiency, excessive politicization and ambiguous procedures for many years". Singapore also followed the United States and the United Kingdom and withdrew from UNESCO.

While the major Western countries maintained a high degree of alignment with the United States, the Soviet Union did not take any practical actions to support the UNESCO. In September 1984, the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister wrote a letter to the then Director-General Mbo. In the letter, although the Soviet Union expressed its support for the "New World Information and Communication Order" and UNESCO's participation in disarmament efforts out of its own interests, it opposed any attempt to review UNESCO's charter or modify its decision-making rules and procedures. However, it also hoped to improve the administrative and budgetary efficiency of UNESCO. After the United States officially withdrew, the proportion of the fixed membership fee that the Soviet Union contributed remained at 10.08%, and it did not fill the resource gap caused by the withdrawal of countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Under these circumstances, UNESCO was unable to obtain alternative resources and could only significantly reduce its budget and cut internal expenses. From 1986 to 1987, the regular budget of UNESCO dropped to 289 million US dollars, less than half of the budget before the withdrawal of the United States and the United Kingdom.

IV. Resistance-based Strategy: UNESCO's Response to the "Withdrawal" Actions of the Trump Administration 

On October 12, 2017, the US Department of State issued a statement saying that the United States has decided to withdraw from UNESCO. This decision was made by the US due to "increasing unpaid membership fees, the lack of fundamental reforms by UNESCO, and the long-standing bias of the organization towards Israel", among other concerns.

(1) Specific manifestations of the resistance strategy adopted by UNESCO

In response to the "withdrawal" actions of the Trump administration in the United States, UNESCO, due to its relatively low concentration of required funds and professional network resources, and because major powers did not align their policies with those of the United States, was more likely to obtain alternative resources. Therefore, it adopted a resistance strategy to counter the United States' withdrawal. In terms of discourse, both Bocova and Azoulay, the two directors-general of UNESCO, expressed dissatisfaction with the "withdrawal" actions of the United States; in terms of action, UNESCO took a series of measures to improve the financing mechanism and other actions to maintain the organization's autonomy, while maintaining strategic silence on the policy demands of the United States.

In terms of words, both of the two directors-general of UNESCO have publicly criticized the "withdrawal" behavior of the United States. After receiving the formal notification from the United States indicating its intention to withdraw from UNESCO, the then director-general, Bocova, immediately issued a statement expressing deep regret over the US's decision. Bocova said, "At a time when the fight against violent extremism requires new investments in education, cultural dialogue, and the prevention of hatred, the US's withdrawal is very regrettable." She stated, "This is a loss for UNESCO, a loss for the United Nations family, and a loss for multilateralism." On November 13, 2017, the new director-general of UNESCO, Azoulay, in her inaugural speech, said, "Even if all the problems we face are common problems, some countries have begun to withdraw from the international community... I call on member states to face their responsibilities and not to be partners with frequent uncertainties."

In terms of action, on one hand, the new director-general of UNESCO led and promoted the strategic transformation of the organization to maintain its own autonomy, enabling it to cope with the political and financial crises caused by the United States' "withdrawal from the group"; on the other hand, UNESCO remained strategically silent on the accusations made by the United States such as "no fundamental reform" and "continuing bias against Israel", and did not respond to its policy demands.

In 2018, upon taking office, Director-General Azoulay initiated a strategic transformation of UNESCO. This transformation was regarded as a key measure to reshape the organization's functions and restore the trust and synergy of member states. However, unlike the reform that the United States expected for UNESCO, which aimed to change the current situation where "it fails to reflect the interests of the United States' foreign policy" and "does not demonstrate the influence of American funds", Azoulay stated: "We need to take control of our own destiny and regain the initiative; in other words, we must start to transform and ensure that UNESCO can better support the international community in achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals through strategic choices."

During this strategic transformation process, the resource expansion and strengthening of communication measures in the second stage provided better survival conditions for UNESCO. In terms of resource expansion, UNESCO initiated new fundraising dialogue activities, expanded off-budget fundraising channels, implemented a comprehensive partnership strategy to simplify the steps in resource raising, compiled new fundraising guidelines, and formulated plans for raising funds from the private sector, as well as even recruiting dedicated regional fundraising personnel. Through these series of fundraising measures, UNESCO achieved its first budget increase in nearly 20 years in 2019, that is, the total amount of member states' contribution fees rose, and the off-budget fundraising in the 2019-2020 fiscal year increased by 50% compared to the previous fiscal year. In terms of strategic communication, UNESCO established a new internal communication committee, formulated a new communication strategy, social media policy, and digital platforms.

After the United States announced its "withdrawal" decision in 2017, UNESCO continued its previous actions on issues related to the Middle East and did not make any clear adjustments to respond to the demands of the United States. By reviewing the relevant statements made by the United States within UNESCO from 2003 to 2011, it can be found that the main positions of the United States on the Middle East issues are as follows: First, the United States opposes the "politicization" wording in the Palestinian-related resolutions; second, for the cultural heritage located in the disputed territory between Palestine and Israel, the United States only supports the technical work of protecting cultural relics and heritage under the World Heritage Committee, but opposes discussing related issues in institutions such as the UNESCO General Assembly and Executive Committee that have national representatives; third, the United States firmly opposes UNESCO admitting Palestine as a member state. However, since 2017, the successive executive committees of UNESCO have still passed resolutions titled "Occupied Palestinian Territory", which cover the protection of the ancient city of Jerusalem, education in the Gaza region, and the protection of Palestinian cultural heritage sites. The membership status of Palestine has not been undermined, and the countries that have objections to cultural heritage sites such as the ancient city of Hebron/Halil remain Palestine.

Based on the theoretical framework presented earlier, we can analyze why UNESCO adopted a resistance-based response strategy from two aspects: resource concentration and consistency of the major powers' positions. 

(2) Low concentration of resources

When the Trump administration announced the withdrawal decision in 2017, the concentration of UNESCO's required resources in the United States had significantly decreased. UNESCO no longer relied heavily on the budget funds provided by the United States, and the importance of cooperation between the United States and UNESCO's professional network also declined. 

On the one hand, from the perspective of the distribution of funds, in 2017, UNESCO's dependence on funds from the United States was relatively low. Firstly, the fixed membership fee that the United States was obligated to pay to UNESCO has decreased in importance, accounting for approximately 13.2% of its financial revenue. In 2017, voluntary donations accounted for 40.29% of UNESCO's financial revenue. From 2016 to 2017, the proportion of the fixed membership fee that the United States was obligated to pay to UNESCO was 22%. Secondly, since 2011, after UNESCO accepted Palestine as a full member, the United States has stopped paying membership fees to it. As of the time when the United States announced its withdrawal in 2017, the United States had suspended its membership fee payment to UNESCO for six years, with outstanding fees exceeding 500 million US dollars. Therefore, UNESCO's actual expenditure in 2012-2013 had already decreased from the previous 653 million US dollars to 465 million US dollars. By the time the United States announced its withdrawal in 2017, UNESCO had taken a series of measures to address the financial crisis, such as establishing an emergency fund, reducing travel expenses for staff, and narrowing the scope of activities. Its dependence on the funds of the United States had significantly decreased.

On the other hand, from the perspective of professional online resources, in 2017, the distribution of UNESCO's professional online resources was relatively scattered, and it was less affected by the United States' "withdrawal". Firstly, in the global partnership network that UNESCO established to enhance its operational capabilities, the role played by US institutions was relatively small. After 2000, UNESCO, due to its own resource and operational capacity limitations, gradually improved the system of implementing its own strategies and action plans through second-level institutions and centers. The so-called second-level institutions and centers refer to those sponsored and supported by member states, which establish formal connections with UNESCO through cooperation agreements and contribute to UNESCO's plans and priorities on a global or regional scale. Currently, countries such as France, China, India, and South Korea have actively established second-level institutions and centers to support UNESCO's work, while the number of such institutions established by the United States in cooperation with UNESCO is very limited. Secondly, for UNESCO's new major plans, initiatives, and conventions, the United States is no longer an important participant. In 2005, UNESCO launched the International Basic Sciences Programme (IBSP), aiming to support capacity building in the field of basic sciences in developing countries. This program is one of UNESCO's five science plans, but the United States did not participate in it. In the cultural field, for UNESCO's 2001 "Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity" (UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity), the 2005 "Convention on Diversity of Cultural Expressions" (2005 Convention on Diversity of Cultural Expressions), the 2001 "Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage" (Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage), and the 2003 "Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage" (Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage), the United States held an opposing attitude and did not participate as a contracting state. Finally, the importance of American staff in UNESCO has declined. As of June 2017, UNESCO had 2,109 staff members from 171 countries, among whom there were 57 American staff members; but during the same period, there were 358 French staff members, 53 Japanese staff members, and 40 Chinese staff members.

In conclusion, in 2017, the concentration of funds and professional network resources required by UNESCO decreased, which was conducive to its seeking alternative resources. Moreover, the positions of other major powers were less consistent with those of the United States, and they were willing to continue supporting UNESCO in its work, making it easier for it to find alternative resources.

(3) The positions of major countries are less consistent.

In 2017, regarding the issue of "withdrawal from organizations", major powers did not align their positions with that of the United States. This was mainly manifested as follows: Major powers did not follow the United States in withdrawing from organizations; some major powers explicitly criticized the United States' withdrawal actions, or stated that they would continue to support UNESCO; China and other major powers jointly supported the key business matters of UNESCO, to some extent filling the resource shortage caused by the United States' withdrawal.

First of all, the major powers did not follow the United States in withdrawing from UNESCO. Unlike the first "withdrawal" by the United States, which was accompanied by the "follow-up" of many countries including the United Kingdom and Singapore, the Trump administration's withdrawal received only the support of Israel. As an ally of the United States, the vast majority of Western countries did not make any statements in support of the United States or criticizing UNESCO, and even regarded this "withdrawal" by the United States as a "betrayal" towards its Western allies.

Secondly, most major countries expressed regret over the United States' "withdrawal" and promised to continue supporting the work of UNESCO. The spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry said, "Moscow regrets the decision of the United States. This will have a serious impact on UNESCO." A spokesperson for the British government said, "The UK will remain a member of UNESCO and will work together with other members to support the organization's work." The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement indicating that as the host country of UNESCO, France strongly supports the organization's actions and emphasizes that the future of the organization is particularly important for France.

Finally, major countries such as China have intensified their efforts to support the activities of UNESCO. On one hand, China has increased its contribution to UNESCO's membership fees. After the United States withdrew from the organization, China became its largest contributor. From 2020 to 2021, China's fixed membership fee contribution accounted for 15.49% of the total, which filled the gap caused by the United States' withdrawal. On the other hand, China and France, among others, provided additional funds for the two major overall priorities of UNESCO - gender equality and African development. China established the Girl and Women's Education Award at UNESCO in 2015 and renewed the agreement in 2020, committing to continue providing financial support for this award over the next five years. In 2019, the Chinese government signed the "China-UNESCO Trust Fund Agreement" with the Director-General of UNESCO, Audrey Azoulay, deciding to implement the new phase of the China-UNESCO Trust Fund Project (CFIT) starting from 2019, to support higher vocational education for African development and the funding period was four years, with the second-phase project funds still being 8 million US dollars. In 2019, France provided a voluntary donation of 5 million euros to support UNESCO's work in the field of education. In addition, France also jointly raised 15 million euros with UNESCO to support the UNICEF and UNESCO in conducting girl education projects in Senegal, Togo and Cameroon, and provided support for girl and women education through the "Global Education Partnership".

Closing Remarks

Based on the resource dependence theory of international organizations, this paper attempts to explore the differences in strategy choices of international organizations in responding to the "withdrawal" behavior of major powers and the underlying logic behind them by constructing a theoretical framework of "resource concentration + consistency of major powers' positions". The paper argues that the concentration of resources required by international organizations and the consistency of the positions of major powers within the organization jointly affect the space available for international organizations to obtain alternative resources, thereby influencing their strategy choices in responding to the "withdrawal" behavior of major powers. Specifically, when the concentration of resources necessary for the survival of international organizations is high and the policy positions of major powers and the withdrawing country are relatively consistent, international organizations find it difficult to obtain alternative resources and tend to choose an adaptive response strategy; when the concentration of resources necessary for the survival of international organizations is low and the consistency of positions between major powers and the withdrawing country is low, international organizations are more likely to obtain alternative resources and are more likely to choose a resistance-based response strategy.

The two cases of UNESCO responding to the US' "withdrawal" have confirmed the above analytical framework. In 1983, the funds and professional network resources needed by UNESCO were centrally controlled by the US, and major countries such as the UK, West Germany, and Japan maintained a relatively consistent stance with the US. Therefore, it had to adopt an adaptive strategy to deal with the US' withdrawal, acknowledging the organization's own shortcomings in its discourse, and taking actions to actively respond to the US' policy demands. In 2017, the concentration of the funds and professional network resources needed by UNESCO had significantly decreased, and major countries such as China, France, and the UK did not maintain a consistent stance with the US. This enabled it to adopt a resistance strategy to deal with the US' "withdrawal" behavior. It not only criticized the US' behavior in its discourse but also maintained strategic silence on its demands, and took measures such as expanding fundraising channels and strengthening publicity to maintain the organization's autonomy.

At the theoretical level, this paper further advances the theoretical research agenda on the relationship between major powers and international organizations. Most studies on major powers' withdrawal from international organizations focus on analyzing the differences in their withdrawal behaviors and the political games between the withdrawing countries and other countries within the international organization. They rarely explore the strategic choices of international organizations in responding to the "withdrawal" of major powers. This paper introduces the resource dependence theory of international organizations and points out that the concentration of resources required by international organizations affects their strategic choices in responding to "withdrawal". By treating international organizations as the core actor, this paper is conducive to constructing a truly international organization-centered theoretical system.

At the policy level, this article not only provides valuable insights for international organizations on how to deal with the "withdrawal" of major powers and the current crisis, but also has certain reference value for China's characteristic international organization diplomacy. In the face of the unprecedented major changes in the world and the new round of large-scale "withdrawal" by certain major powers, on the one hand, China needs to deeply study the key resources required for the survival and development of international organizations and their distribution status, and better assess the possible response strategies that international organizations may adopt when facing the "withdrawal" of major powers; on the other hand, China needs to strive to unite other major powers within international organizations and adhere to true multilateralism, jointly implement the global development initiative, global security initiative, and global civilization initiative, and jointly build the community with a shared future for mankind, so as to better fulfill the responsibility of being a maintainer and builder of international organizations as a major power. (Author: Zhu Jiejin, Professor, School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University; Liu Yingchen, Doctoral Candidate, School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University)  

(AI translation, with omissions)