The U.S. Senate in 1972 ratified the World Heritage Convention. This United Nations program, under their arm, UNESCO has the purpose of protecting and managing, “the cultural heritage and natural heritage not only of each nation, but of mankind as a whole.” The World Heritage Guidelines go on to say, “Parts of that heritage, because of their exceptional qualities, can be of outstanding universal value and as such worthy of special protection against the dangers which increasingly threaten them.”

The World Heritage Convention is designed to protect these unique places. Although the convention specifically states that it does not infringe on National Sovereignty concern began to grow across this country when signs began to appear at our parks and public lands that said, “United Nations World Heritage Site.” These signs sparked rumors that we were losing national sovereignty over our own lands. While not literally true, there is a loss due to the fact of signing Treaties and ratifying the 1972 convention, which lays certain legal requirements upon us.

The problem with these programs is not their lofty and noble goals. The problem is in their mandates and implementation and their link to other treaties and agreements, which if accepted by Congress can lead to direct loss of sovereignty. When an international treaty or agreement is signed, we agree to the terms and conditions of the agreements, and by default we have given up a portion of our national sovereignty in order to meet the terms and conditions. And while agreements do not specifically state that the U.N. has sovereignty, they do permit “partnerships” and other forms of cooperation between the United States and the U.N.

Under certain conditions the World Heritage Committee can declare one of our sites “In Danger.” Such a designation mandates the U.S. to correct the problem or suffer withdrawal of the site by the U.N. as a World Heritage Site, accompanied by much negative publicity and world scorn. And since only the World Heritage Committee can remove the “In Danger” classification, the United States is forced to abide by its recommendations, thereby indirectly giving up its sovereign right to govern itself.

Rightly or wrongly, by ratifying the World Heritage Convention in 1972, the U.S. Senate knowingly agreed to give up a portion of U.S. sovereignty to achieve what it perceived at the time to be a larger benefit or need. The Senate is authorized to do this under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Under Article VI this treaty becomes the supreme law of the land to which state law must comply.

This UNESCO program is being used by the U.N. to achieve goals not stated in the convention itself. For instance, the original World Heritage Guidelines specifically state:

“To avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, state parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated for inscription pending the final decision by the committee on the nomination in question. Participation of local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel shared responsibility with the state party, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the Committee.” – paragraph 14 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Although much of this objectionable language was removed from paragraph 14 in the late 1990s because of outrage by American citizens and the U.S. Congress the “we know better than people” arrogance exhibited by the Operational Guidelines remains. For instance, paragraph 44b-vi of the current guidelines still states that, “Buffer zones should include sufficient areas immediately adjacent to the area of outstanding universal value in order to protect the site from direct human encroachment and impacts of resource use outside the nominated area.” In other words, land use and other human activities outside the U.N. World Heritage Site are still subject to U.N. rules and restrictions.

Maine public lands are of course listed on the U.N. protection and management Web site. http://www.wcmc.org.uk/protected areas/data/un 97 list.html. Click on Protected Areas database and select an area and year

(1993 or 1997).

The U.N. list on Maine includes:

1. St. Croix Island National Monument

2. Acadia National Park

3. Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge

4. Petit Manan

5. Sunkhaze Meadows

6. Baxter State Park

7. Camden Hills State Park

8. Rachel Carson

9. Grafton Notch State Park

10. Mount Notch

11. Mount Blue State Park

12. Caribou-Speckled Mountain

The policy on U.N. intervention on World Heritage sites came to life in 1995 when the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a group of environmental organizations, along with the U.S. Department of Interior, invited the World Heritage Committee to visit Yellowstone Park to determine if it should be declared, “In Danger.”

The reason the enviros acted, along with Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, was a proposed gold mine about six miles north of the park. Neither the enviros nor the Department of the Interior wanted the mine developed. They wouldn’t, or didn’t, consider that; 1) more than 90 percent of the area to be developed was private property; 2) there was a mountain range between the park and the mine; 3) the valley mine proposed had been mined for 150 years; 4) the company developing the mine had engineered environmental safeguards into the project; 5) the company had spent millions of dollars cleaning up old pollution from previous mine owners; 6) the mine development was undergoing a full Environmental Impact Statement. However, the World Heritage Committee found the Park “In Danger” and required a buffer zone around the park. The mine has not opened.

Simply stated, the request for the committee to review Yellowstone was used as a tool to end run the U.S. law and regulatory procedure, and thus gave the Interior Department greater leverage in deciding the fate of other private land activities outside the park.

The same tool could be used in Maine by the enviros and their government allies. Consider the proposed 3.2 million acre park; that could become a 6.2 million-acre environmental zone with U.N. partnership.

Any of the present public lands here in Maine could be subject to this type of enviro and U.N. control. And that threat must include the private owned land around each of our sites, and the natural resources we now use in their vicinity.

Robert O.Voight, of Lubec, founded the Maine Conservation Rights Institute.