Controversies about the World Heritage Treaty

"WORLD HERITAGE 'PROTECTION': UNESCO's War Against National Sovereignty" appears to be representative of a number of things on the World Wide Web that are critical of the World Heritage Treaty and of UNESCO for its implementation. Some history might be helpful.

When there was a proposal in the 1990's to mine gold just outside Yellowstone, a UNESCO World Heritage Program team was invited to review the plans and panned them (no pun intended). In 1995, Yellowstone was declared a World Heritage Site in Danger, largely as a result of the potential environmental impact of the planned mine. The Clinton Administration eventually placed restrictions on a ring of land surrounding Yellowstone, killing the plans for the mine. The case is still cited by conservatives as interference in U.S. domestic affairs by an international organization, and the loss of 200 jobs and of revenues that resulted from not opening the mine is blamed upon foreign influence.

Yellowstone is one of 22 sites in the United States identified as World Heritage sites under the 1972 Treaty that the U.S. not only signed, but promoted. Russell Train is reputed to have played a critical role in its creation.

I have visited some of the cultural and natural treasures identified as World Heritage sites, and an happy that they are protected. As I value the existence and protection of the sites in other nations, so too do their citizens value the existence and protection of the sites in the United States. I can understand why some would object to foreigners looking over the shoulders of Americans and commenting on our protection of sites in our country, but it seems a small price to pay for the ability to protect sites all around the world. And indeed, I tend to agree that all the world has an interest in the protection of Yellowstone.

UNESCO designation of a site as deserving World Heritage recognition is valued for its tourist impact. There is a large amount of public interest in such sites, and in national efforts to get World Heritage recognition for cultural and natural sites. In some cases UNESCO makes grants to help protect such sites -- the grant program is small. Listing sites as endangered has on some occasions encouraged government action and enabled fund raising to preserve the site. UNESCO can in drastic circumstances remove a site from its list of 788 sites.

Countries of course retain sovereignty over the sites. The U.S. Government described the situation as follows: "by signing and ratifying the World Heritage Treaty, the United States accepted the obligation to respect the integrity of all sites that it voluntarily nominates and the World Heritage Committee subsequently designates. The United States exercises this treaty obligation by applying its own existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations, not by yielding sovereignty and becoming subject to United Nations laws or regulations."

The American Land Sovereignty Protection Act was proposed to require congressional approval to designate any federal land within U.S. borders as a United Nations World Heritage Site, Biosphere Reserve or Ramsar Site (wetland). (The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program -- MAB -- has also been targeted by these critics. The Act was approved by the House in 1999 after a long battle, but did not become law; It has been reintroduced since that session.

Thus, the World Heritage Treaty has become a target for those who promote "American Exceptionalism". John Bolton is of course, the most visible proponent.

The listing of the Old City of Jerusalem as an endangered World Heritage site, done at the nomination of Jordan and without Israeli participation, has also raised particular ire in some parts.

The application for the designation of the Golden Temple in Amritsar is now raising some controversy, with the Sikh community opposing the Government of India's petition.

This is the UNESCO World Heritage Center website.