Similar to the Israeli ambassador being recalled from Dublin. They mean it as a big dramatic statement but they've done it that many times it's lost all significance.
She only gets reinstated again for the purpose of making another dramatic exit.
I suppose looking at it from the Israeli government's perspective, Ireland is a very safe place for Israelis and Jewish people in general, but the public and government are vocal on Israel's actions and there's no defence/intelligence links between the two countries. Trade links are on the European level.
There'll never be a reason for them to send a skilled diplomat, so may as well send a shit stirrer who's only good for causing controversy.
They’re never happy about the loss of money. For UN institutions, the US usually contributes a theoretical cap of about 22% but in real terms I think it’s more like a quarter of their annual budget or a little over in some cases. When we’re not paying, that’s a lot of money that UNESCO isn’t getting.
Predictably, if/when China becomes the premier funder of UN organizations, there will be a lot of grousing about it by US politicians. The amount of soft-power being trashed is astounding
We’re the ones seeking to cap our contributions. The formula currently doesn’t allow for any one country to pay more than 22% with America the only one actually paying that much, save for the institutions we’ve cut off. For UN peacekeeping we’re actually assessed at 27% but Congress capped that to 25% back in 1993.
All of our foreign policy prior to January 20th 2025 is in a state of flux. Officially, Congress cares, but the first 7 or so months of this year have been enlightening in a strange way, and with our President taking the lead, there is a strong possibility that Congress will not care if the possibility of the PRC paying more comes up in any policy discussions.
