December
10th, 2013 by Tom DeWeese
In 1836, 150 courageous and
dedicated men died defending the Alamo. They fought in opposition to the rise
of authoritarian big government as Mexico abandoned its Republic. The men of
the Alamo were essentially betrayed and sacrificed by their own Texas government
because of indecision and bickering by its political leadership.
Such a betrayal is about to happen
again as our government is moving forward with plans to place the Alamo, symbol
of American freedom, into the hands of the United Nations as a World Heritage
Site.
As usual, when government
bureaucrats attempt such a move they know will bring criticism and anger, they
start their denials in advance. We are always assured that a UN designation to
American historic sites mean nothing. “It’s just an honorary designation that
could help tourism to the site, and thus help the local economy”. We are
constantly assured by government officials. And so it begins. Texas Land
Commissioner, Jerry Patterson assures Texans that if the Alamo and several
other former Spanish missions in San Antonio are added to UNESCO’s World
Heritage list, the Alamo will remain under the control of the state of Texas
and the Texas Land Office. Well, Commissioner Patterson, perhaps you don’t have
all the facts on your desk.
Many Americans have been disturbed
to find that there are 22 areas in this nation that have been designated as
United Nations’ World Heritage Sites. As a result of a UN treaty called “The
Convention Concerning Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,” such
sites come under the jurisdiction of the United Nations’ Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Such designations have been the
source of major debate as to whether the UN has gained control of sovereign
American territory.
These 22 US sites include such
important American historical sites as Independence Hall (where the Declaration
of Independence was signed), Thomas Jefferson’s home “Monticello,” and the
entire University of Virginia, along with the Statue of Liberty. Also designated
are such vast areas of land Yellow Stone National Park, Yosemite National Park,
the Great Smoky Mountains and Everglades National Park (which UNESCO has now
labeled as “endangered.” Fully 68 percent of American national parks,
preserves and monuments are included in the current UN designations, including
vast areas of park lands and wilderness areas such as the Aleutian Islands in
Alaska, Joshua Tree National Monument in California, and the Guadalupe
Mountains National Park in Texas, to name about half of the current US sites.
Supporters of the UN Heritage Sites
say such designations are nothing more than a great “honor” to the nation. They
assure us that there is no threat to American sovereignty and that all
designated sites remain firmly under control of the United States government.
If true, then the question must be
asked, why is an international treaty with the United Nations necessary? The
United States has already designated most of the UN Heritage Sites as United
States parks. The land is already being preserved and protected for AMERICAN
heritage purposes. These lands are valuable for their historical significance
to this nation. REPEAT: WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO DO WHAT THE
UNITED STATES HAS ALREADY DONE FOR ITSELF?
But what about the Alamo? In 1905
the Texas State Legislature entrusted the care and maintenance of the Alamo to
the Daughters of the Republic of Texas (DRT), which under Texas law preserved
the historic site “as a sacred memorial to the heroes who immolated themselves
upon that hallowed ground.” The DRT received no funds from state or federal
sources and maintained the site purely with voluntary contributions. In 2011,
the Alamo website explains, “the Texas Legislature granted authority over the
Alamo to the Texas General Land Office,” which “signed an agreement to keep the
DRT in charge of the daily operation of the Alamo.” (Emphasis
added.) Is it a coincidence that Texas Land Commissioner Patterson is now
pushing for the UN World Heritage Site designation?
Obviously the UN has no great feel
for the “hallowed ground” of the Alamo or what it means to the people of Texas,
or the citizens of the United States. The UN apparently considers the Alamo to
be just part of a grouping of historic buildings in the San Antonio area which
it refers to as the “San Antonio Franciscan Missions.” Just another historic
curiosity.
Who Owns World Heritage Sites?
So, is a World Heritage Site
designation just an honorary program that will help local tourism? It is a
direct threat to national sovereignty? Those supporting the programs correctly
point out that UN documents specifically state that each nation maintains its
own sovereignty.
It is also true that you will not
find any UN documents clearly stating that the world body controls or owns
American soil through the World Heritage Site Treaty. And you will not find
blue-helmeted UN soldiers standing guard over any of the sites.
However, closer examination reveals
that there is a direct threat to national sovereignty, just the same. The problem
stems from the program mandates and implementation – and how they link to other
treaties and agreements. If those mandates are accepted by Congress, they could
lead to direct loss of American sovereignty.
Dr. Michael Coffman, of
Environmental Perspectives, Inc, explains, “when an international treaty or
agreement is signed, we agree to the terms and conditions of the agreement, and
by default we have given up a portion of our national sovereignty in order to
meet those terms and conditions. And while the agreements do not specifically
state that the United Nations has sovereignty, they do permit ‘partnerships’
and other forms of cooperation between the U.S. and the UN.”
According to Dr. Coffman, “this type
of ‘cooperation’ was demonstrated in 1995 when the Department of Interior
invited the World Heritage Committee to visit Yellowstone National Park for the
expressed purpose of declaring the park a ‘World Heritage Site In Danger.’ Such
a designation mandates the U.S. to correct the problem or face withdrawal of
the park by the UN as a World Heritage Site, accompanied by much negative
publicity and world scorn. And since only the United Nation’s World Heritage
Committee can remove the In Danger classification, the United States is forced
to abide by the Committee’s recommendations, thereby, indirectly giving up its
sovereign right to govern itself.”
According to Professor Jeremy
Rabkin, law professor at George Mason University School of Law, and author of
the book, “Law without Nations?,” “(f)undamentally, sovereignty is an
answer to the question: ‘who is in charge?’ There must be an answer to that
question to answer the parallel question: ‘who is responsible?’ A sovereign
government is ‘responsible’ for the territory over which it exercises its
sovereignty. That is the traditional principle in international law.
However, Rabkin goes on to explain,
“(t)he assumption behind the World Heritage program is that a site of special
historic, cultural or scenic importance is better protected by an international
consortium of governments than by the particular sovereign state on whose
territory it exists. In other words, such sites will be better protected by
diffusing responsibility for their protection among many different
governments…”
As Dr. Coffman makes clear, to fully
understand the threat to American sovereignty posed by the UN designation of
World Heritage Sites, one must first link this program to a series of other
treaties and policies, and how they impact American sovereignty. Above all, one
must understand that many in the Federal Government, such as the Obama
Department of Interior, see such programs as another tool to build massive
federal land-control programs.
There is strong evidence of close
collaboration between the U.S. Park Service and the UNESCO World Heritage Site
Committee. There is also strong evidence that the designation of UN World
Heritage Sites goes hand in hand with the Administration’s Sustainable
Development program. That program is nothing less than a massive federal zoning
program that dictates property development on the local level, in the name of
protecting the environment. The goal of Sustainable Development is to lock up
vast areas of American land, and shield it from private use.
The designation of United Nations’
World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves can and does result in the
centralization of policy-making authority at the federal level, particularly by
the Executive Branch. Once a UN designation is made and accepted by the Federal
Government there is literally no opportunity for private American land owners
to dispute it or undo the designation.
Private property rights literally
disappear, not only in the officially designated area, but worse, in buffer
zones OUTSIDE the designated area. Not only has the federal government been
using these treaties and agreements to limit access to, and use of, these lands
to all Americans, but they also have used the UN designations to limit use of
private property OUTSIDE the boundaries of the site.
That is exactly what happened
outside of Yellowstone National Park (a World Heritage Site) when UNESCO
delegates were called in by the Park Service in an attempt to stop the
development of a gold mine – located OUTSIDE the park. The UNESCO delegates
declared Yellowstone to be the first “endangered” World Heritage Site and
called for a protective buffer zone of 150 MILES IN DIAMETER AROUND THE ENTIRE
PARK. Such a buffer zone would stop development and access to millions of acres
of private property. Such is the true purpose of the World Heritage Sites.
Moreover, in becoming party to these
international land-use designations through Executive Branch action, the United
States is indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the
Biodiversity Treaty – a UN treaty that has never been ratified by the United
States Senate.
Nevertheless, in 1994, the U.S.
State Department published the “Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve
Program.” Taken straight from the unratified Biodiversity Treaty, the State
Department program is to “create a national network of biosphere reserves that
represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the
internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.”
A chief tactic used by the UN and
the Federal Government when designating a biosphere reserve or a World Heritage
Site is to rarely involve or consult with the public and local governments. In
fact, UNESCO policy actually discourages an open nomination for World Heritage
Sites. The “Operational Guidelines for the Implementations of the World
Heritage Convention” state:
“In all cases, as to maintain the
objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to
those concerned, State (national) parties should refrain from giving undue
publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated inscription pending
the final decision of the Committee of the nomination in question.
Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to
make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance
of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the committee.”
In other words, the nominating
committee is to hide the fact that a massive land grab is about to take place.
Then, at the appropriate moment, the committee is to involve some local yokels
to make them think they have something to say about the grab, then send them
away, so that the committee can move ahead, unhindered. They aren’t to worry
about the fact that private landowners have just lost control of their
property.
This is not the way the U.S.
Constitution says things should be done. This is how despots at the United
Nations run things. The Federal Government is allowing them to do it for the
sake of more Federal power.
By allowing these international land
use designations, the United States promises to protect the sites and REGULATE
surrounding lands if necessary to protect the UN-designated area. Honoring
these agreements forces the Federal Government to PROHIBIT or limit some uses
of private lands outside the international designated area UNLESS OUR COUNTRY
WANTS TO BREAK A PLEDGE TO OTHER NATIONS.
In a nutshell, here is the real game
being played. Through such policies, the Federal Government is binding our
nation to international treaties and agreements that stipulate that the United
States will manage these lands in a prescribed manner in order to achieve
certain international goals and objectives. In other words, we have agreed to
limit our right of sovereignty over these lands.
These are the reasons why it’s clear
that World Heritage Sites are an infringement of United States sovereignty. You
won’t find the smoking gun by reading the treaties. It can only be found in
understanding the “intent” and the “implementation” of the policies.
Texas, one of the great freedom
loving states in the Union, would do well to reconsider its naïve and misplaced
efforts to sentence the Alamo to the UN’s web of control. The state may just
find that it is once again out-gunned at the Alamo – this time by the UN.
Source:
American Policy Center - See more at: http://americanpolicy.org/2013/12/10/the-alamo-hallowed-american-ground-or-un-captive/#sthash.5k2P48La.dpuf
Comments:
It’s time for
the US to quit the UN. Their latest pipe
dream is to grab 22 US tourist sites, next it will be all national parks. Google UN Agenda 21 and look at the US map
and you’ll see where they are going with this.
Norb Leahy,
Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment