Is the US required by law to withhold funds from the World Bank and the IMF?

The law which now requires the United States to withhold funding from UNESCO might also require withholding funds from other agencies. It should be revised to give waiver power to the president.

Following the vote last October of the General Conference of UNESCO to admit Palestine as a member state, the United States Government has been withholding funds from UNESCO. It has done so because of two clauses of U.S. law (US Code - Title 22: Foreign Relations and Intercourse / 22 USC 287 - Sec. 287e. Authorization of appropriations; payment of expenses):

• Pub. L. 101-246, title IV, Sec. 414, Feb. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 70, provided that: "(a) Prohibition. - No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states. "(b) Transfer or Reprogramming. - Funds subject to the prohibition contained in subsection (a) which would be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof (but for that prohibition) are authorized to remain available until expended and may be reprogrammed or transferred to any other account of the Department of State or the Agency for International Development to carry out the general purposes for which such funds were authorized." 
• Pub. L. 103-236, title IV, Sec. 410, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 454, provided that: "The United States shall not make any voluntary or assessed contribution - "(1) to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, or "(2) to the United Nations, if the United Nations grants full membership as a state in the United Nations to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, during any period in which such membership is effective."

What does the term "affiliated organization of the United Nations" mean. The United Nations lists as "Specialized Agencies" among others: UNESCO, the World Bank Group, and the International Monetary Fund. Presumably then the United States Government is required to withhold funds from the World Bank and the IMF were they to grant "full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood."

According to Wikipedia, the internationally recognized attributes of statehood are as follows:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Consider Somalia. Somalia is a member country of the World Bank. It is also a member of the IMF. According to Wikipedia, "since the outbreak of the Somali Civil War in 1991 there has been no central government control over most of the country's territory." Thus Somalia does not seem to have more of the internationally recognized attributes of statehood than does Palestine which Wikipedia reports is recognized by 130 other countries..

Consider Kosovo. It is also a member country of the World Bank and the IMF. According to Wikipedia, 

"the partially recognised Republic of Kosovo, a self-declared independent state, has de facto control over most of the territory,[ while North Kosovo, the largest Kosovo Serb enclave, is under the control of institutions of the Republic of Serbia. Serbia does not recognise the unilateral secession of Kosovo and considers it a UN-governed entity within its sovereign territory." It too seems not to have more of the internationally recognized attributes of statehood than does Palestine.

It would seem that the United States must therefore withhold funding not only from UNESCO but also from the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund. In this time of global economic uncertainty, any indication of U.S. withdrawal of funding from the IMF would of course be very dangerous. The U.S. Government has nominated a candidate for President of the World Bank, and that nomination would also be endangered by a threat of U.S. withdrawal of funding from the World Bank.

The Obama administration is requesting a change in the legislation which would give the President the power to waive the provision if necessary to advance U.S. global interests. Such a waiver would provide flexibility to move quickly to avoid cuts in funding of the World Bank, the IMF or any other body of affiliated with the United Nations should that become important.