The US's decision to cease funding the UN's Unesco organization is fundamentally unjust.

Great, thanks a lot for accepting; this is my first debate. Good luck too.First of all, I think that the US government's decision to end its funding was unjust and wrong because:a) It directly counters the core principles of the US democratic system.b) Appertains to self-interest and a political stance, at the expense of others.c) An action that has profound negative impacts development projects, humanitarian aid and public improvement programmes.d) Represents the immoral power of the elite; in essence the US is arguing against a choice made by the majority, yet due to its position within the global international order, it is able to 'strike back'.e) Palestine is a tiny region! Why punish the whole world just to withhold development, support and aid to a tiny landmass?My main argument is as follows:The US government's decision to end its funding of the Unesco organization was made in retaliation to the outcome of the UN vote, which saw that out of 173 countries taking part, 107 voted in favour, 14 voted against and 52 abstained. The vote itself indicates the support of an overwhelming majority for the full admission of Palestine to Unesco. In essence, 62% of the countries were in favour, compared to only 8% against (without taking into account the neutrality of abstinence; 30%). As a democratic country, and one that prides itself in the core facets of liberty, freedom, individual rights, justice and equality, surely it should respect the free and democratic decision made by the UN? Consequently the US's decision to withhold funding can be interpreted as a retaliatory (and almost petty) action, in the face of democracy and justice. As an analogy, one could say that when a vast group of supporters of a candidate in a hypothetical presidential race discover that their hopeful has been defeated democratically, they would decide to stop paying taxes to the government in retaliation. In effect; they would be striking a blow the institution that they oppose, but in the process, they would be harming the states spending power, negatively impacting aid, health care and support. The main effort of this analogy is to emphasise both the immorality of the US's decision and it's inherent illogicality. It shows to the world, and those critics of the US, that all is not what it seems. Perhaps the US's ideals of democracy and freedom (and the imperative respect of those aspects) are false? Perhaps they mean nothing other than empty and coercive political rhetoric? These are questions that I like to consider, for I honestly feel that the US's principles of freedom, liberty and equality are tantamount to none; the most advanced in the world, yet seem to be frequently forgotten.Palestine, as a (currently) unrecognized entity or social conglomerate, represents both a tiny landmass and a relatively small population. Therefore, the financial impact of such a decision on Unesco's funding would be minimal. The funding would undoubtedly bring great social and economic improvements to the region, while in relative terms, having a small impact on the funding capacity of the organization. Unesco supports and funds a plethora of social, economic, humanitarian and cultural projects world wide, and Palestine would represent a small proportion of the total aid and assistance provided. So, if it was argued that the US's decision was based on a (politically motivated) need to prevent funding for Palestine, then it is essential to consider that they would be achieving their aims at the expense of numerous countries, and millions of people. The level of US funding - $60m (£37m) - represents a massive proportion of the total capital that Unesco receives; around 20% of its total budget. This strikes me as immoral and unjust. To pertain to a political stance (which in itself is also arguably immoral!)Moreover, with the removal of ~20% of Unesco's total annual funds, millions of people will suffer and numerous projects and development programmes will suffer significantly. The year of 2010 saw developments made in countries ranging from the bedraggled and earthquake stricken country of Haiti, to the rapidly expanding and developing country of India, to name a few. Programmes saw the education of many, the protection of key areas within these countries, and the improvement in the living standards of many. These represent just a few of many improvements that Unesco brings to not only the developing world, but to a vast number of nations. Therefore I would like to point out the intrinsic and inherent immorality of the US's decision to withhold funding. They are countering development and advancement with the ambition of a Machiavel and the tactlessness of a revenge seeking bigot.While I do not advocate any utilitarian approach, I do feel that the US should have taken a reasoned approach of adroitness when dealing with this issue. The US government should realise that their actions will be negatively impacting many, and should act accordingly. Therefore, even though the admission of Palestine to Unesco may oppose their fundamental political stance in the Middle East, they should accept it as fair. I am neither a devout supporter of consequentialism nor deontological ethics but I would say that the US should appertain to moral obligation and social duty; they should have retained funding solely because it would have the most positive impact on the greatest number; because it was the morally correct thing to do; and because it would result in a just and righteous eventuality or outcome. But then again, governments do not abide to morality. My point still stands, however, that the US's decision to cease funding the UN's Unesco organization is fundamentally unjust.I look foreward with anticipation to your reply!