World Heritage Areas: A Critical
Analysis
by Ryan Balis
Our nation's most
valued landmarks remind us of the liberty, strength, and justice
of America at its best.
Yet, unfortunately,
politics - international politics, to be exact - is making use
of long-standing national landmarks we think of as distinctly
and unambiguously American: The Statue of Liberty, the Grand
Canyon and Yellowstone National Park, to name a few.
Since 1972, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) - the cultural arm of the U.N. - has designated
22 sites in the U.S. and some 788 sites worldwide as cultural
or natural sites of "world heritage."1
UNESCO describes
these extraordinary buildings, monuments, and natural parks as
being of "outstanding value to humanity,"2 and their preservation, therefore,
a matter of global concern. Administered from its headquarters
in Paris, UNESCO enforces international protection of World Heritage
sites under the terms of the 1972 World Heritage Treaty, 3 which the U.S. was the first nation
to ratify in 1973.4
When a site is designated
a "World Heritage Site," it does not become the property
of the U.N. Indeed, ceding formal authority of U.S. territory
to an outside power would violate long-established principles
of national sovereignty. The government of the country hosting
the site has legal authority and is, ultimately, responsible
for its care.5
UNESCO's monitoring
of the condition of sites deemed World Heritage is supposedly
advisory and limited to technical or logistical assistance. The
major "carrot" of World Heritage designation is the
increased levels of tourism its prestige generates; the sanction
of de-listing a site from the heritage roster is the main "stick."
A site's removal has thus far not occurred, though, chiefly because,
as Professor Jeremy Rabkin of Cornell University rightly points
out, "there is no way to prevent a country from continuing
to advertise a de-listed site as of 'world heritage' quality."6
Instead, UNESCO
issues the equivalent of a "yellow card" by categorizing
sites it considers mismanaged or threatened as a "World
Heritage Site in Danger" - a label that it then uses to
generate international publicity about a site's deteriorating
condition.7 Subtle enough, but this indirect power
of a supposed "moral authority" can be used in bad
faith, particularly at the local level, to interfere in domestic
disputes.8
In 1995, the World
Heritage Committee designated Yellowstone National Park a "World
Heritage Site in Danger" after the New World Mine was proposed
on a mix of private and public land three miles from the park.
A coalition of environmental groups claimed that the mine's operation
- which would have provided 280 jobs in a site containing an
estimated $650 million of gold and other minerals - would pollute
streams leading into the park.9
The Clinton Administration
allowed U.N. bureaucrats to enforce a 12-million-acre "buffer
zone" around the 2.3-million-acre park.10 In the end, what should have created
revenue cost U.S. taxpayers $65 million in compensation costs
for a government buyout that closed the mine and paid for its
cleanup.11
Israel has twice
witnessed its management of the Old City of Jerusalem and its
Walls thwarted by the U.N. In the early 1980s, UNESCO - part
of the body that once equated Zionism with racism12 - permitted Jordan to nominate the
city as World Heritage, although Israel governed the city and
was not a party to the World Heritage Convention. The Israeli
government, therefore, had virtually no say when, within a year,
Jerusalem became listed as a site "in danger," a designation
it retains today.13
UNESCO regulations
now permit only the host country to nominate a site for World
Heritage. Yet, anti-Israel politics undeniably played a role
in the listing of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls.14
Despite national
sovereignty concerns, some governments seek World Heritage inclusion
because it enables them to receive grants from the U.N.'s World
Heritage Fund. However, beyond advisory sessions or other such
technical assistance, the helping promise of World Heritage is
ambiguous. An annual budget of roughly $4 million - the majority
of which comes from member state dues - naturally limits assistance
to areas of greatest need: Sites in developing countries in Africa
and Asia and those damaged by natural disaster or war. In fact,
sites in desperate need of restoration receive not more than
$50,000, which is the cap in emergency aid set in the fund.15
With direct U.N. aid limited, private resources must spearhead
the conservation effort. David Packard, co-founder of the Hewlett-Packard
Co., is credited with saving the Zeugma mosaics in Turkey from
ruin. (Mercedes-Benz also donated $6,000 to this effort.) Elsewhere,
the World Monuments Fund (WMF) raised $15.3 million from private
businesses and distributed this to 400 sites in 2003.16
However, more such
private resources are needed, and the private sector has shown
to be very willing to offer financial help. Yet, UNESCO, as a
multi-state-governed organization, has been slow to reach out
to businesses and philanthropists. A scheme termed Partnerships
for Conservation (PACT) launched by UNESCO in 2002 to generate
private donations has generated only minor success.17 (Perhaps UNESCO would secure greater
private support if businesses and individuals were encouraged
to donate directly to conservation projects instead of directly
to a U.N.-managed fund.)
In 1984, President
Ronald Reagan courageously withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO to protest
its radical agenda and budgetary mismanagement (Britain followed
suit from 1985-1997). This absence continued until 2003, when
President Bush, saying his Administration sought "to express
America's firm commitment to uphold and promote human rights,
tolerance and learning worldwide," re-joined the organization.18
However, re-entry
came at a staggering price: 22 percent of UNESCO's budget ($71
million in 2004, plus a promised contribution of $60 million)
is paid by American taxpayers. It is much to ask the American
people to accept funding an organization that grants the U.S.
only a single vote in its proceedings.19
The recent U.N. Oil for Food scandal underscores why the U.S.
should not hesitate withdrawing from an arm of the U.N. in which
few Americans have confidence.
What then should
be the course of action for Americans who want to limit the scope
of perceived United Nations authority over our national landmarks?
The House of Representatives
approved the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act in 1999.
The measure required congressional approval before any more U.S.
properties are designated as U.N. World Heritage Areas. The Senate
failed to even vote on the bill.20
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist could rectify this injustice,
and should be encouraged to do so, though the House would be
required to vote again before the measure would be presented
to the President.
An alternative to
adoption of a renewed American Land Sovereignty Protection Act
could be a concurrent resolution expressed by Congress reminding
the U.N. of Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the World Heritage Treaty.
This passage affirms that the sovereignty of the state on which
a World Heritage site is situated will be respected.21 The last Congress failed to act on
such a resolution (introduced by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas), which
also called for Congress to again withdraw the U.S. from UNESCO.22
Congress should
act to make it clear to the U.N. that the authority to manage
U.S. lands rests exclusively with the American people.
We should preserve our cultural and natural heritage for future
generations to enjoy by controlling or repairing the damage caused
by overcrowding, theft, and weather.23
But managing "heritage" at the global level is not
only economically impractical, but it also confuses the distinctness
of American heritage with what the first President Bush called
a "new world order."
Landmarks and memorials
within U.S. territorial boundaries belong to the American people.
The U.S. must control these without outside interference or unsummoned
advice.
# # #
Ryan Balis is a
policy analyst at The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Comments may be sent to [email protected].
Footnotes:
1 "Partnerships
for Conservation," United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre, Paris, France,
available at http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=38 as of December
7, 2004; "New Finds; No Funds; Archaeology in Turkey,"
Economist (U.S.), June 19, 2004, p. 82.
2 "How We Work,"
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
World Heritage Centre, Paris, France, available at http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=34
as of December 7, 2004.
3 "UNESCO World
Heritage Convention," United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre, Paris, France,
available at http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=182 as of December
7, 2004.
4 "State Parties
to the Convention," United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre, Paris, France,
available at http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=157 as of December
7, 2004.
5 Testimony of Professor
Jeremy A. Rabkin of the Department of Government, Cornell University
before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C., June 10, 1997, available at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/105cong/fullcomm/jun10.97/rabkin.htm
as of December 7, 2004.
6 Testimony of Professor
Jeremy A. Rabkin of the Department of Government, Cornell University
before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C., June 10, 1997, available at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/105cong/fullcomm/jun10.97/rabkin.htm
as of December 7, 2004.
7 "Ruins on
the Rack; World Heritage Sites," Economist (US), June 19,
2004; "New Finds; No Funds; Archaeology in Turkey,"
Economist (U.S.), June 19, 2004, p. 82.
8 "About the
List of World Heritage in Danger," United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre, Paris,
France, available at http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=158&l=en
as of December 7, 2004; Testimony of Professor Jeremy A. Rabkin
of the Department of Government, Cornell University before the
Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington,
D.C., June 10, 1997, available at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/105cong/fullcomm/jun10.97/rabkin.htm
as of December 7, 2004.
9 Testimony of Kathleen
Benedetto, National Wilderness Institute, before the Subcommittee
on Forests and Public Management, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, United States Senate, May 26, 1999, available at http://www.nwi.org/Testimony/testmay99.html
as of December 7, 2004; John F. Harris, "Near Yellowstone,
a Deal that Saves the Land; Vacationing Clinton Touts Bargain
between Mining Interests and Environmentalists," Washington
Post, Aug. 13, 1996, p. A4.
10 Charles Fernandez
and Jeff Selle, "The U.N. Goes West," Bonner County
Daily Bee, Aug. 11, 1996, available at http://amprom.org/documents_pages/ungoeswest.html
as of December 7, 2004.
11 Joe Marquette,
"Yellowstone Mining Deal Scrapped; Clinton Announces Pact
in Park," Chicago Sun-Times, Aug. 13, 1996.
12 The text of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 3379 states the following: "Determines
that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination."
United Nations Security Council, "Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination," Resolution 3379, 13th Session,
November 10, 1975, available at http://www.cinu.org.mx/biblioteca/documentos/palestina/ares3379.htm
as of December 7, 2004.
13 "World Heritage
in Danger List," United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre, Paris, France,
available at http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=86 as of December
7, 2004; "New Finds; No Funds; Archaeology in Turkey,"
Economist (U.S.), June 19, 2004, p. 82.
14 Testimony of
Professor Jeremy A. Rabkin of the Department of Government, Cornell
University before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C., June 10, 1997, available at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/105cong/fullcomm/jun10.97/rabkin.htm
as of December 7, 2004.
15 "Ruins on
the Rack; World Heritage Sites," Economist (US), June 19,
2004; "New Finds; No Funds; Archaeology in Turkey,"
Economist (U.S.), June 19, 2004, p. 82.
16 "Ruins on
the Rack; World Heritage Sites," Economist (U.S.), June
19, 2004.
17 "New Finds;
No Funds; Archaeology in Turkey," Economist (U.S.), June
19, 2004, p. 82.
18 "About U.S.
and UNESCO," U.S. Department of State, Washington D.C.,
available at http://www.state.gov/p/io/unesco/usunesco/ as of
December 7, 2004; Nile Gardiner and Jennifer A. Marshall, "Advancing
U.S. Interests at UNESCO," Heritage Foundation Executive
Memorandum #919, April 5, 2004, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/em919.cfm
as of December 7, 2004.
19 Ibid.; House
Congressional Resolution 443, 108th Congress, 2nd Session, June
3, 2004.
20 Testimony of
Kathleen Benedetto, National Wilderness Institute, before the
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Management, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, United States Senate, May 26, 1999, available
at http://www.nwi.org/Testimony/testmay99.html as of December
7, 2004.
21 The text to Article
3, paragraph 1 states: "Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty
of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage
mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 is situated, and without prejudice
to property right provided by national legislation, the States
Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes
a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international
community as a whole to co-operate." - "UNESCO World
Heritage Convention," United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization World Heritage Centre, Paris, France,
available at http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=182 as of December
7, 2004.
22 House Congressional
Resolution 443, 108th Congress, 2nd Session, June 3, 2004.
23 Peter Neville,
Hadley, "Heritage Lost: UNESCO's World Heritage List is
Intended to Help Preserve Historic Sites, but in China, Inclusion
on the List Can Be the Kiss of Death," National Post (Canada),
December 7, 2002, p. B1; "Ruins on the Rack; World Heritage
Sites," Economist (US), June 19, 2004.
