March / April 1998

Table of Contents

About this edition...

Parting the Waters
(from the owners)

International Implications
on Water Use in America

International Criminal Court
Summary Analysis

Meeting on
International Criminal Court

The Cost of Sustainable Developmeent

How the UN Influences Domestic Policy

America's Responsibility to the World
Essay by Henry Lamb

About this edition...

See page 31. If you are a member of an organization, get your organization involved in this important campaign.

Our lead story ties three current land and water regulatory initiatives directly to Agenda 21: American Heritage Rivers; Gore's Clean Water Initiative, and the Lower Mississippi Delta Heritage Corridor.

Tom McDonnell spoke on this issue recently to the Trans-Texas Heritage Associations in Midland, Texas. His entire presentation appears on page 7.

Page 11 begins a summary analysis of the UN's new International Criminal Court. The full (177-page) document is available at www.sovereignty.net This is the court recommended by the UN Commission on Global Governance. The Conference at which it will be adopted is scheduled for June 17-July 20 in Rome.

A supplement is provided on page 13 by Professor Richard Wilkins, who was in Geneva in April for the final Preparatory Committee meeting at which the final draft was prepared.

An extensive analysis of sustainable development activity in Missouri on page 16 demonstrates how Agenda 21 policies are making their way into practice. Tom McDonnell's Case Study of Yellowstone Park (page 22) reveals how UNESCO influenced domestic policy there.

The essay on page 27 suggests a more appropriate role for the United States to play in the UN.

Front cover photo: St. Louis Arch, a city under siege by proponents of sustainable development. The entire state is under siege by those who think they know what is best for Missouri.
Back cover photo: Yellowstone National Park, a national treasure under siege by proponents of UNESCO's global network of Biosphere Reserves. The entire nation is under siege by those who think they know what is best for all Americans.

Parting the Waters
(from the owners)

One if by land, two if by sea...is the signal Paul Revere anxiously waited to see. His famous ride awoke a nation to resist the British invasion. No one was standing in the old North Tower to see the forces massing for a new invasion. There was no modern-day Paul Revere waiting for a signal. There was instead, a new President and Vice President in Washington, who opened the gates and rolled out the red carpet to welcome the invaders as captains in a new gunless army, committed to the shotless overthrow of Constitutional government in America.

The invaders are not from an aggressive foreign nation; they are from a foreign ideology. They live in all nations, including America. They are motivated by the lofty ideal that in order to help people avoid the pain of living, government must manage all the affairs of all the people from the cradle to the grave. For example, the World Resources Institute (WRI) is one of three international NGOs (non-government organization) that are responsible for the development and publication of virtually all the policy documents and international environmental treaties that have been adopted by the United Nations. Gustave Speth was president of WRI from its inception in 1982, until Bill Clinton was elected in 1992. Speth then joined the Clinton/Gore transition team until after the inauguration, then became the Executive Director of the United Nations Development Program. Speth's chief policy analyst at WRI joined the State Department and is now an outspoken captain in the revolutionary army. These are but two of more than twenty former executives from major environmental NGOs that now occupy policy-making positions in the Clinton/Gore White House and/or the United Nations. Their declared objective is to inflict a "wrenching" (as Al Gore describes it in Earth in the Balance) transformation of American society. The new American society is being constructed upon the principles, not of the U.S. Constitution, but upon the principles and policies of the United Nations.

A classic example of the transition in progress is the Administration's current initiatives to take control of the use of both land and water. Three initiatives focus on the control of water: the American Heritage River Initiative; the Vice President's Clean Water Initiative; and the Lower Mississippi Delta Region Heritage Study. While proponents of these initiatives emphatically deny any influence or any connection at all to the United Nations, all three of the initiatives are designed to implement policies set forth in the UN's Agenda 21, adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It is important to realize that the WRI was instrumental in the development of Agenda 21 during the years leading up to the 1992 UN conference at which the policy document was adopted. Now, the same individuals who developed the policy are captains in the Clinton/Gore revolution responsible for implementing those policies.

To be specific, examine Chapter 18 of Agenda 21: "Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources." This chapter describes in detail what each nation should do; the Clinton/Gore revolutionary army is doing it. From the "Objectives" of Chapter 18:

"The overall objective is to satisfy the freshwater needs of all countries for their sustainable development. Integrated water resources management is based on the perception of water as an integral part of the ecosystem.... To this end, water resources have to be protected. Priority has to be given to the satisfaction of basic needs and the safeguarding of ecosystems. Beyond these requirements, however, water users should be charged appropriately. Integrated water resources management, including the integration of land-water-related aspects, should be carried out at the level of the catchment basin or sub-basin." (Agenda 21, 18.7-9, p. 167).

To achieve these objectives, Agenda 21 calls for specific actions by the year 2000:

"To have designed and initiated costed and targeted national action programmes, and to have put in place appropriate institutional structures and legal instruments."

And by the year 2005:

"Formulation of costed and targeted national action plans and investment programmes...including the inventorying of water resources, with land-use planning, forest resources utilization, protection of mountain slopes and riverbanks and other relevant development and conservation activities."

Complying with the UN

Compliance began even before the UN document was adopted. Coordinated by the WRI, and their two international NGO-counter parts, the environmental lobby was successful in the enactment of Public Law 100-460 which created the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission to "assess the needs, problems, and opportunities" of the people who live in 219 counties in the seven state Delta region. The Commission presented its report on May 14, 1990, entitled The Delta Initiatives: Realizing the Dream...Fulfilling the Potential. In 1994, Congress authorized (Public Law 103-433) the Secretary of Interior (Bruce Babbitt, former head of the League of Conservation Voters) to conduct "a study of significant natural recreational, historical or prehistorical, and cultural lands, waters, sites, and structures located in the Delta Region." The first volume of that study was released in February, 1998. Interestingly, while the study took four years to produce, people who may wish to comment on this study are given only 30 days to do so.

The study presents four alternatives for Congress to consider.

A. Lower Mississippi Delta Heritage Tourism Initiative;

B. Lower Mississippi Delta Heritage Commission;

C. Lower Mississippi Delta Heritage Centers;

D. Sharing Delta Heritage in the 21^st Century.

The study says that four alternatives are presented from which Congress may pick and choose, the recommendation is to implement all four alternatives simultaneously, under the direction of alternative B, the Lower Mississippi Delta Heritage Commission.

According to the report, "Commission members would be appointed by the Secretary of Interior. The Commission would consist of: "a representative from each state government; a person from each state representing local government; representatives from the major federal government agencies; and a person representing the public from each state."

The Commission would expand its scope of operation to 308 counties, and be responsible for: "(1) preparation and approval of a comprehensive management plan for the lower Mississippi Delta; (2) making loans and grants for the purpose of conserving and protecting sites; (3) coordinating the activities of federal, state, and local governments, educational institutions, private sector initiatives, and public interest projects; (4) providing advice and assistance in preparation of applications for loans and grants; (5) disseminating information; and (6) entering into cooperative agreements with others to purchase, rent, or receive donations of properties or interests in properties for conveyance to an appropriate public agency for use for public purposes. The plan was devised from the recommendations of 25 people selected to participate in a meeting in Memphis on June 4-6, 1996, with additional input from 700 others in a series of meetings "across the Delta."

This is the structure of a significant part of the "national action plan" called for in Agenda 21. But it is only a part of the plan. Add the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This program is designed to focus both the financial and enforcement resources of the federal government on specific rivers and waterways through "partnerships" with NGOs. One such NGO, American Rivers, which is a regular recipient of grants from the Department of Interior, recently announced that the Missouri River was the second most threatened river in America in support of the river's nomination as an "American Heritage River" by two other NGOs, Preservation Cascade, Inc., and the Missouri River Citizens, Inc.

The nomination seeks to declare the entire 2,546 miles of the Missouri River, from its headwaters in Montana to the confluence with the Mississippi near St. Louis, as an American Heritage River. The nomination form says: "The focus of the plan is not management of the river as much as management of those who use the River." The plan calls for the removal of 15 dams now on the river, to be financed by a sur-charge on electric bills. "Another great threat to the Missouri is subdivision of river front property.... The public has never understood the impact it created on the river banks, wildlife, and vegetation. The plan will deal with future governance of those using the Missouri River...to preserve the integrity of the river, [and] prevent its further degradation."

Hundreds of NGOs have submitted similar nominations to "protect" rivers from those who use them. These plans, developed and administered by selected NGOs, are consistent with the creation of "management" entities such as the Lower Mississippi Delta Heritage Commission which, if funded by Congress, will be the official body responsible for coordinating and approving virtually all activity within the designated area. It is significant that elected officials, and officially elected bodies of government at the local, state and federal level are excluded from participation, except for the appropriation of money to implement the various plans. It is strategically important for the proponents of the various programs to present them individually, and deny any relationship to other programs, and especially to deny any relationship with the UN, in order to prevent Congress from seeing the comprehensive nature of the transformation that is underway.

Then comes Al Gore's "Clean Water Initiative." Without bothering Congress, Gore asked his EPA Administrator and Secretary of Agriculture to produce new regulations to achieve the objectives set forth in Chapter 18 of Agenda 21: control by the federal government of water use in the United States. In order to "protect" water resources, Gore has called for the identification of "major sources of nitrogen and phosphorous in water" and for the acceleration of new "water quality criteria...by the year 2000." He has called for new standards for "polluted runoff" to be in place by March 1, 1999. These new standards give the federal government the regulatory power to stop and/or prevent human activity which results in the violation of the new standards. Through these new standards, the federal government effectively gains the power to dictate to every farmer and rancher what he may or may not do on his own land, with his own water.

Moreover, Gore's new initiative calls for the creation of two million miles of buffer strips along America's water ways "protecting waters from agricultural runoff." In practice, this means that every farmer and rancher will be required to get a permit from the federal government which will determine what the land owner may or may not do -- without consideration of what the land owner needs to do to make his land economically viable. The two million miles of "buffer" zones serve another purpose: corridors for interconnecting core wilderness areas as required by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. No, the treaty was not ratified by the U.S. Senate, but that fact has not slowed the Administration's implementation of regulatory measures to achieve the objectives of the treaty.

Agenda 21 called for the creation of "national plans" to protect freshwater by the year 2000. Many of the same people who developed Agenda 21, are now the captains in the Clinton/Gore Administration who have developed and are busy implementing those plans, for the most part, just as they have been dictated by the UN. Elected officials at the local and state level are routinely by-passed by federal agencies that offer economic incentives or disincentives to state and local agencies that are most often eager to adopt federal policy. Congress is deliberately by-passed. The result is an invasion through the front door of an ideology that can't accept the idea that public policy should be enacted only by officials elected by those who are governed. The attitude expressed in the Missouri River nomination "The public has never understood..." reveals the attitude that drives the Clinton/Gore White House as well as the United Nations. Ordinary people -- who happen to own the land and resources it contains -- cannot be expected to "understand" the appropriate way to manage the land and its resources. Therefore, the only solution is to create the necessary machinery to ensure that the will of the enlightened elite will prevail, requiring ordinary people to conform their behavior to policies designed to protect them from their own ignorance.

- ecologic staff

INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
ON WATER USE IN AMERICA

By Tom McDonnell

Presented to the
Trans-Texas Heritage Association
March 29, 1998

In 1992, Agenda 21 was adopted by the United Nations at its Earth Summit in Rio. Chapter 18 of Agenda 21, dealing strictly with the protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources is having increased effect on use and management of water in the United States.

At the April 1, 1997 5^th Session of the United Nations (UN) Commission on Sustainable Development, the U.S. State Department updated the UN on the United States' accomplishments in terms of implementing Agenda 21. To quote the State Department, "Watersheds are a primary concern ofthe President's Council for Sustainable Development." Please note for later reference that "watersheds are a primary concern". The U.S. State Department went on to say:

"Agenda 21 sets ambitious objectives to meet the goal of satisfying the freshwater needs ofsustainable development. The concept that is central to it, is for countries to move toward integrated water resources management, a holistic approach that treats water resources as an integral part of the ecosystem. The United States is working towards this goal. Many projects are being undertaken in these areas throughout the United States - such as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin, the Columbia River system, the Missouri River system, the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basins, and the Everglades that take a more integrative look at managing these resources than has been done in the past."

The State Department's next statement to the United Nations is of major importance to water users in Texas and the United States:

"A watershed management approach is being proposed for incorporation into the primary federal statute regulating water quality."

As you will see, a number of initiatives have been launched by the administration in 1997 and early 1998 that are based on a watershed approach.

What does Agenda 21, Chapter 18 call for in terms of freshwater protection? First it calls for the regulation on the amount of water withdrawn annually from both groundwater and surface water sources. In terms of agriculture and other uses, Agenda 21 states that water withdrawls "must be limited to a percentage of total annual flow" In terms of domestic consumption, Agenda 21 states that water must be limited to 400 liters per day, per person. This 400 liters is not just water for personal use, but water to wash cars, grow food, etc. Agenda 21 also states that percentage water withdrawal is an indicator of the health of biodiversity. If read literally, this statement means the lower the percentage of water withdrawn, the healthier biodiversity. As we are all aware, agricultural irrigation practices increase vegetative production per acre. A common principle of wildlife biology is that wildlife populations are a function of the vegetative resources available. Agenda 21's assumption that water withdrawal is an indicator of the health of biodiversity therefore seems to contradict common principles of biology.

Agenda 21 encourages governments to form "partnerships between public and private sectors and NGO's, aiming towards improved local capacity to protect water resources". Here in Texas, non-government organizations (NGO) such as Sierra Club have used litigation under environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act to limit ground water withdrawal to a percentage of annual flow. The Texas legislature has also just recently finalized legislation in response to that litigation which regulates and controls withdrawal of groundwater.

The next two items that must be regulated according to Agenda 21 are very important in relationship to environmental and water issues affecting us today. Agenda 21 states that faecal coliform contamination of freshwater must be limited. Agenda 21 also states that nitrogen and phosphorus releases to freshwater must be limited. I will discuss these items in detail later in this speech.

At the February 23-27, 1998 Intersessional Working Group Meeting of the UN Commission of Sustainable Development on Strategic Approaches to Freshwater Management held in New York, the U.S. State Department reported that on October 18, 1997 Vice President Gore had announced his Clean Water Initiative. What this initiative means for Americans, is that EPA, USDA and other federal agencies are being allowed a vast expansion of regulatory authority under the non-point source pollution provisions of the Clean Water and the Coastal Zone Protection Acts.

The Vice President's Clean Water Initiative begins with the assumption that:

"Polluted runoff has for too long eluded control under conventional regulatory approaches. Communities need Federal help and partnership to protect water quality on a community-led watershed basis, rather than through piecemeal steps."

The piecemeal steps I believe he is referring too, is the fact that water belongs to you and the state, and water has "eluded" full federal control under traditional piecemeal applications of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Wilderness Act, wetlands regulations and reservations of water by indigenous peoples under the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Vice President directs federal agencies to develop within 120 days a comprehensive plan that promotes water quality protection on a watershed basis.

The Vice President's clean water plan is to encompass regulatory compliance, enforcement, budgetary, and where appropriate, incentives or market based steps to meet its obligations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior are directed to develop a strategy to ensure proper stewardship of federally managed watersheds and to restore watersheds adversely affected by man's actions.

Agencies are also required to ensure that their actions and activities in no manner contribute to urban sprawl or other forms of development. An interesting point is made in the State Department report to the UN. In that report, it is pointed out the Nature Conservancy and the National Biological Survey are actively analyzing any negative impacts that dams may be having on fisheries, endangered species and biodiversity in general. Requiring that federal agencies ensure that their actions in no manner contribute to sprawl and development may have considerable implications on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permitting and permit renewal of hydroelectric and irrigation dams. In fact, Secretary Babbitt has stated in speeches and to the media that there will be no new dams permitted under his administration. The Department of the Interior also made requests last year for appropriations for the removal of several dams across the United States. In November 1997, FERC authorized the removal of the 917-foot Edwards Dam in Maine, stating the environmental damage to striped bass and salmon greatly outweighed the 160-year-old dam's benefits. In December 1997, work began to remove to Quaker Neck Dam on North Carolina's Neuse River. Three small dams in Michigan and Wisconsin were not reauthorized and are slated for removal. The NGO organizations such as Sierra Club are currently demanding removal of the Glen Canyon dam in Arizona, the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams in Washington, the Savage Rapids dam in Oregon, the Rodman dam in Florida and three more dams in Maine.

Under the Clean Water Initiative, agencies are also directed to develop strategies that eliminate unnecessary roads, address runoff from abandoned mines and ensure coordinated watershed management strategies "regardless of jurisdictional boundaries." In January 1998, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) was the first federal agency to announce that it was not only placing a moratorium on road construction, but also on the reconstruction of roads in "roadless areas" until such time as new regulations can be put in place. The reason roads exist in a "roadless area" is found in USFS definition. Under the Forest Service definition, a "roadless area is an area where there are no improved roads maintained for travel." The two key words in this definition are "improved" and "maintained". Therefore, it is possible that if maintenance or "reconstruction" of a road under USFS definition is prohibited, the Forest Service will no longer have to consider a road a road, and "roadless areas" can be vastly expanded.

In an internal memorandum, Forest Service Chief, Mike Dombeck stated, "we will take every opportunity to tie with the VP's Clean Water Initiative and indeed provide a media event for the VP to showcase the initiative on national forest lands." Dombeck also stated that the watershed protection aspects of the agenda should be emphasized, "especially [in] relat[ionship] to wildlife protection, water quality and watersheds."

A legal review of the Forest Service "roadless" proposal completed by ASI and its attorneys, shows that the U.S. Forest Service has no legal authority to put in place a moratorium on road building and reconstruction. This right is reserved by Congress, and Congress alone. Secondly, if the USFS moves forward with its proposal, the Forest Service will be violating the National Forest Management Act, Federal Lands Policy Management Act, Federal Road & Trails Act, Multiple Use & Sustained Yield Act, General Mining Law and NEPA. The bottom line is the USFS moratorium is ILLEGAL.

The Vice President's Clean Water Initiative goes on to state that there will be a net gain of 100,000 acres of wetlands by the year 2005. Remember that wetlands are federally regulated, thus the federal government under this single proposal intends to expand its regulatory authority over another 100,000 acres.

The initiative also states that two million miles of buffer strips protecting water from agricultural runoff will be put in place by the year 2002. There are three million miles of rivers and streams in the United States, with one-third of the United States currently owned by the federal government. This directive could mean that every river and stream crossing private and state land in America will have a buffer zone placed around it.

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service has already announced its stream buffer strip initiative and is currently working with private landowners to implement it. Proposals are currently moving forward that will place these private land buffer zones into programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). In fact the Vice President's Clean Water Initiative redirects CRP and EQUIP programs to not only address highly erodible lands, but to also provide habitat for endangered species, fish and wildlife.

Agenda 21, Chapter 18 states that nitrogen and phosphorus releases into freshwater must be limited. Under the Clean Water Initiative, EPA is directed to implement a criteria system and actions addressing nitrogen and phosphorus runoff by the year 2000. In two years, the EPA may be telling you where, when and if you can use fertilizer. Remember that one-half of the increases made in agricultural production during this century were attributed to herbicide and fertilizer use, so this action item could have major ramifications on all Americans.

The last point made in the Vice President's Clean Water Initiative involves the regulation of livestock feeding operations. Agenda 21, Chapter 18 states that faecal coliforms must be limited. On March 5, 1998, EPA announced that under the Clean Water Initiative it has developed a draft strategy to regulate animal feed operations.

EPA will begin requiring the permitting of animal waste discharge under the Clean Water Act. This action will not only control faecal coliforms, but as stated in EPA's March 5 news release, "Reductions in animal waste runoff will decrease the amount of excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) entering surface water bodies."

At first these regulations are to only apply to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) larger than 1,000 cattle or 5,000 sheep. But EPA states that it will also apply to operations within an area of critical concern. The EPA, however, does not define areas of critical concern. These areas may be impaired waterways as defined by the EPA itself, or ESA critical habitat as defined by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, or endangered ecosystems as defined by the National Biological Service, or all of the above. This draft strategy could eventually impact all 450,000 livestock feeding operations in the United States, and if NGO organizations have their way in litigation, apply to all grazing allotments, farms and ranches.

The good news is --- the law under the Clean Water Act's non-point source provisions is still relatively undefined. Unlike other environmental laws, agriculture and resource dependent industry still have the opportunity to define this law within the courts, IF WE TAKE ACTION NOW. It is my contention that the administration, including the USFS, has exceeded its authority under these initiatives. It is time to remind the administration of the checks and balances placed by the U.S. Constitution on its powers, and its time to remind the administration it is accountable to Congress and the people of this nation - not to Agenda 21.

President Clinton, by Executive Order, without statutory authority, adopted a federal program in September 1997 under which ten rivers a year will be designated as Heritage Rivers. A "River Navigator" - a federal advisor, will be assigned to each designated river, and 13 federal agencies will administer the program. They will not only administer the river, but the river's WATERSHED area. I will not go into much detail on this subject since Congressman Bonilla covered it so eloquently, but I would like to focus the audience's attention on House hearings that were held last year on the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. During questioning, Council of Environmental Quality Chairman, Katie McGinty was purposely vague on what the full purpose and the source of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative was.

I would once again like to return to April 1, 1997, five months before the rivers initiative was put into effect, when the U.S. State Department updated the UN Commission on Sustainable Development on the United States' accomplishments in terms of implementing Agenda 21. The State Department stated that, "Watersheds are a primary concern ofthe President's Council for Sustainable Development." The State Department went on to say: "Agenda 21 sets ambitious objectives to meet the goal of satisfying the freshwater needs ofsustainable development. The concept that is central to it is for countries to move toward integrated water resources management, a holistic approach that treats water resources as an integral part of the ecosystem. The United States is working towards this goal." The State Department noted that, "A watershed management approach is being proposed for incorporation into the primary federal statute regulating water quality."

The American Heritage Rivers and Clean Water Initiatives are both watershed management approaches. They are watershed initiatives that address the challenges laid out at the February 23-27, 1998 meeting of the Intersessional Working Group of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development on Strategic Approaches to Freshwater Management. Let me quote points 13 and 14 from of the chairperson's report:

"actions related to integrated water management need to take place at the local and national level. These actions should be closely related to other areas of natural resource management, including land, forestry and mountain development. Effective integrated water resources management should incorporate river basin, catchment, watershed and ecosystem approaches."

"There is also a need to minimize impacts from human activities on coastal areas, estuarine and marine environments, and in mountainous areas."

All of the components, of the President and Vice President's freshwater initiatives are also found in the U.N. Commission of Sustainable Development's report on freshwater.

The danger of these initiatives lies in the fact that if the federal government is allowed to establish a "partnership" in the management of state water resources they will next want primary regulatory authority over all water use. Actions such as the Federal Bureau of Reclamation's recent filing of a lawsuit against New Mexico and Texas regarding ownership of water in the lower Rio Grande suggests that this administration will not be satisfied until ownership and management of the water is removed from the states and federalized. The UN chairperson's report at the February 1998 meeting in New York takes this point one step farther. Under Section IV, "Actions and Means of Implementation", Point 17, the co-chairperson states:

"Governments are called upon to address the need for achieving universal access to water supply and sanitation,"

"In formulating and implementing integrated water resources management policies and programs, there is a need to take into account actions to implement relevant conventions in force, in particular Conventions on Biological Diversity, Desertification, Climate Change, Wetlands (Ramsar) and International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)."

In closing, history has provided us with repeated accounts of instances where the centralization of authority has always led to the collapse of the civilization itself, yet few today seem concerned with the President and Vice President's watershed initiatives which take steps towards such levels of centralization. History provides us with repeated accounts of how the collapse of agriculture has led to the collapse of the civilizations themselves. Yet few remember that fertilization and irrigation have been responsible for a doubling in America's ability to feed itself.

The President and Vice President's watershed initiatives are aimed at granting our regulatory agencies with such powers as are needed to centralize watershed (land-use) authority. Centralized watershed authority, in effect regulates our nation's food security.

Yet, the only safe thing most people can say about history is that they learn nothing from it. Each generation feels itself wiser and stronger than those of the past, and therefore immune to the hazards of history. Religion and philosophy, politics and science, education and economics have poured their individual balm upon the wounds of the world, and yet they suffer and struggle, deplore and despair. All the while, mute testimony of history stands wonderingly and helplessly by, because they ignore it. Look at the lessons and listen to the voices of past calamity. These were individual people just as you and I, living souls used as pawns in the game of personal power.

(Tom McDonnell is the Director of Natural Resources for the American Sheep Industry Association,
and a member of the Board of Directors of Sovereignty International, Inc.)

International Criminal Court

Summary Analysis

On June 17, 1998, delegates from around the world will assemble in Rome, Italy to adopt a document that will change the world forever. The document is a "statute" which creates the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new court has been under development for several years. It was first described publicly in Our Global Neighborhood, the report of the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance (Chapter six, pp. 323-325, 348), published in 1995 by Oxford University Press (see eco-logic, January/February, 1996). In July, 1997, Maurice Strong, Executive Coordinator of UN Reform, who also served on the Commission on Global Governance, announced that the Conference on the new International Court was scheduled for June, 1998. The Preparatory Committee met in Zutphen, the Netherlands in January, again in March and April in Geneva, and now the final draft of the document creating the court is ready for the finishing touches and final adoption in Rome in June.

The first purpose and function of the court is to prosecute war criminals, and others guilty of "enumerated" crimes. There is much disagreement, even at this late stage in the negotiations, about just which crimes should be enumerated, or whether or not to enumerate crimes. Our Global Neighborhood recommends the court prosecute violations of international law, contending that "...the very essence of global governance is the capacity of the international community to ensure compliance with the rules of society" (p. 326). While there is much left to be agreed upon by the delegates, the central issue appears to be decided: there will be an International Criminal Court. All that remains to be decided is the extent to which it may initially govern the globe.

Issues that remain to be resolved in Rome include: (1) relationship of the court to the UN; (2) jurisdiction; (3) structure and administration; and (4) implementation procedures.

Relationship to the UN

The creation document, in its present form, is referred to as a "statute," though some delegates prefer to create the court through a treaty. This distinction may be moot in terms of the court's function, but can be extremely important in terms of authority and accountability. It is not yet decided whether the court shall be a free-standing, independent entity related to, but not controlled by the UN General Assembly and/or the UN Security Council. Or, whether the court should be a direct adjunct to the General Assembly and/or the Security Council.

As a free-standing entity, the court would be accountable only to a "Conference of the Parties (COP)," which means simply a group of delegates appointed by the participating nations. An obvious weakness of this structure is the fact that appointed delegates tend to come and go at the whim of current national political leaders. Therefore, the Conference of the Parties is necessarily a fluid body which is dependent upon the Secretariat, or paid staff of the court, for all the information on which the COP exercises its ultimate authority. This is an inherent weakness that flaws the implementation of all treaties.

On the other hand, direct control by, and accountability to the UN General Assembly offers little improvement, since delegates to the General Assembly suffer the same shortcomings as do the delegates to a COP. Moreover, General Assembly delegates already have a plateful keeping up with the other events the staff serves. Whatever the Preparatory Committee decides, the court will be, for all practical purposes, an independent bureaucracy, free to manipulate its would-be master, and exercise its authority around the world.

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is an all-import issue yet to be decided. Jurisdiction of crimes, as well as jurisdiction over geography, is still up in the air. Again, whether or not there should be an international court with any jurisdiction at all, has already been decided. What remains to be decided is where to draw the initial lines of limitation. Whatever lines are drawn in Rome, they can be erased and redrawn in another city in another conference. The document provides for amendment as well as substantial latitude for "rules" to be developed in the future by the court itself.

President Bill Clinton has announced publicly that he supports the International Criminal Court as an effective means to deal with war criminals. There is speculation among Washington-watchers that efforts to prosecute the culprits in the Bosnian-Serb affair have been deliberately delayed to allow the ICC Preparatory Committee to finalize its document. Whether deliberate or not, the ideal time to generate public support for a new International Criminal Court is while the world is focusing on the awkwardness of the effort to prosecute the existing known war criminals. That prosecution is now sure to come after the ICC document is adopted in Rome.

The new court is already being presented to the world as strictly a vehicle to prosecute war criminals. Those who conceived the court, as well as many of the delegates on the Preparatory Committee, see the court as a vehicle to enforce all international law. If not initially, certainly within the foreseeable future. At the April meeting of the PrepCom in Geneva, the delegate from the former Yugoslavia argued:

"Should the ICC reach only war crimes, or should it extend to all crimes against humanity. Here lies the great potential of the ICC: international law has created a huge body of norms, but no means of enforcing them. The ICC will finally present a mechanism for enforcement of those norms. The ICC would determine what the elements of various new crimes are, and then set about enforcing these newly defined crimes."

Mr. Gianfranco Dell'Alba, European Union delegate from Italy, added:

"One thing is absolutely clear; any establishment of the court will require cession of some aspect of sovereignty. We can't have a court without states giving up part of their sovereignty. After 50 years, we are ready to give up sovereignty in Europe. Now is the time for the world to do a small thing in the same direction."

Ms. Mona Rishmawi, International Commission of Jurists, and UN Independent Expert on Human Rights, offers this observation:

"The whole reason we need an international court is that national courts have not done enough, particularly to protect rights of the woman and girl child. The court must be able to receive complaints from a variety of sources; from individuals and from NGOs. The role of the court is not to protect the sovereignty of states, but to protect victims." (These quotes were reported by Professor Richard G. Wilkins, an observer at the April PrepCom meetings in Geneva. Professor Wilkins is associated with NGO Family Voice, an Advisor to Sovereignty International, Inc).

Regardless of what the promotional campaign may say about the court's authority being limited to war crimes, the intent of those who are creating the court is to enforce all international law, including social and environmental law.

Geographic jurisdiction is nearly as troublesome as is the definition of criminal jurisdiction. The discussion centers around how to enforce international law in those nations that choose not to ratify the document. And how to enforce international law when it involves a nation that has not ratified the document as well as one that has ratified. One popular solution is to make the document binding on all nations unless a nation "opts out" by following a prescribed procedure within a specified period of time. As the document now stands, subject to inevitable modification in Rome, the court will become a reality when adopted, and each nation will become subject to its provisions as each nation files a document of ratification or acceptance.

Structure

Articles 30 through 94 deal with the structure of the new court. Only a few issues are decided, but they are significant. There will be no such thing as a jury trial. All judges will be appointed by an authority yet to be decided. There will be an appeal procedure, to the same court, but different judges. Legal persons (corporations and organizations) may be prosecuted as well as natural persons. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment for natural persons, and dissolution and confiscation of assets for legal persons. The court will provide for its own administration through its own Secretariat.

The work of the court will arise from what is called its "Procuracy" (Article 36). Simply put, this is a panel of prosecutors and investigators who have the authority to investigate "complaints" of violations of international law within the jurisdiction yet to be specified. Prosecutors are specifically authorized to investigate complaints submitted by NGOs (Article 46), and pre-indictment arrest warrants may be issued. Prosecutors and investigators may work freely inside the borders of sovereign states without interference by national governments, and national governments are compelled to cooperate with investigators when requested to do so. Article 78.6 deals with states that refuse to comply by referring the matter to the UN General assembly or the UN Security Council "so that necessary measures may be taken to enable the court to exercise its jurisdiction." Convicted criminals are to be jailed in a participating country, or in the court's host country under terms to be negotiated with the host government.

Implementation

Once the court becomes a legal entity by virtue of the adoption of the document, there is still much to be done before UN prosecutors begin snooping around the world. That work is to be done by a Preparatory Commission, created by the document. The Commission will be appointed by the UN Secretary General and shall consist of individuals from those nations that have signed the authorizing document. The Commission shall:

• Make practical arrangements for the establishment and coming into operation of the court;
• Prepare a relationship agreement between the Court and the United Nations;
• Prepare a Headquarters Agreement;
• Prepare a draft rules of procedure of the Court;
• Prepare staff regulations;
• Prepare an Agreement on privileges and immunities;
• Prepare a budget

The Commission will be headquartered in New York and the Secretary General is directed to provide "such services as the [Commission] may require."

Conclusion

The full text (174 pages) of the document is available at http://www.sovereignty.net. This summary analysis only touches the tips of a few of the icebergs that await national sovereignty, and all hope of individual freedom for the rest of the world. Aside from giving the United Nations the power to enforce international law under pain of prison or extinction, in the case of legal persons, this court transforms the United Nations from an institution that serves its member nations to an institution that forces individuals as well as nations to comply with "international norms" as prescribed by the United Nations. It is much too late to stop the creation of this International Criminal Court. It is not too late to render it ineffective. Without the support, and funding from the United States, the court, like the League of Nations, will flounder and eventually vanish. Every American who values individual freedom, private property, free markets, and national sovereignty has a responsibility to help the court follow the League's path to oblivion.

Meeting on International Criminal Court

Geneva, April 15, 1998
1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Room XXI, Palais des Nations

Notes taken at meeting by
Professor Richard G. Wilkins
Professor of Law

INTRODUCTION: The ICC will be a mechanism for transforming international "norms" into enforceable "law."

REMARKS OF MARY ROBINSON, HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS:

Some governments feel threatened by international scrutiny of their actions, and don't want a court that could investigate and indict even top national leaders. The recognition continues, however, that the world needs a powerful and independent international court.

NGOs are able to push the more "progressive and responsible" aspects of the court: these "progressive" matters include the authority of the prosecutor to investigate and prosecute indictments, the definitions of crimes against humanity, the scope of the court's jurisdiction.

We must remain vigilant that the right to receive reparations remains intact.

The importance of gender crimes is particularly acute, because of policies of mass rape during conflict. Forcible impregnation has been a particularly effective way of "tearing the social fabric." Also many countries have outdated laws of ownership of property and succession; women and the girl child in particular suffer here. So, we must take special account of gender in "war crimes" and in "crimes against humanity."

It won't be enough to approach problems in an ad hoc manner. Mass rape is a problem too long ignored by the international community. The special prosecutor in Section 36, paragraph 7, will be given special competence and authority regarding a broad range of gender crimes.

Gender sensitivity, prosecution, and redress must be incorporated into the new court. ("As the High Commissioner, of course, I don't have a political role.")

NGOs will play a substantial role in drafting the scope, jurisdiction, crimes, powers, and operations of the International Criminal Court.

REMARKS OF PROFESSOR LUCIUS CAFLISCH, Legal Advisor, the Swiss Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Head of the Swiss Delegation to U.N. Preparatory Committee to Establish the ICC:

The big question is whether the court should have inherent jurisdiction? This involves several, interrelated "jurisdictional" issues.

First, the court will have jurisdiction only over enumerated crimes (substantive claims).

The second "jurisdictional" issue is who may bring ("trigger") such claims; the discussion here is much like who has "standing" in US federal courts. The ICC will have VERY broad "standing" rules.

Also: is there a "threshold" for the court to take action; i.e., must the national tribunals have refused to take action -- the international court being "subsidiary" to the national tribunals -- should the international court have pre-eminence over national courts?

Up to this point, international courts have operated only upon the "consent" of the states setting up the court or tribunal. But, there are variations: for example, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) only has "jurisdiction" if states consent to jurisdiction of particular disputes, even if the country has already agreed to be bound by the statute creating the ICJ. Question now: should we have a statute that requires states to submit to jurisdiction of the ICC? Crimes against humanity and war crimes should not be subject to control by national courts; the ICC should have broad enough jurisdiction to decide such matters internationally. This, of course, will require states to divest themselves of some of their sovereignty by treaty OR POSSIBLY BY CUSTOM.

Consent of states to jurisdiction can rest on two premises: (1) states have "consented" to jurisdiction by joining the "statute" creating the court; or (2) even if states have "joined" the statute, in some circumstances they must further consent to the resolution of a particular dispute. (See the ICJ procedure.) The matter is further complicated by WHICH states must consent" The state where the crime occurred? The state where the "criminal" is now located" The "home state" of the criminal.

According to the Prep Com, consent is needed by the "territorial" state (where the crime occurred) and the "custodial" state (the state where the criminal is located). Plus, there must be a further "consent" to the jurisdiction of the court. This is the jurisdictional scheme proposed by the International Law Commission. Problem: jurisdiction won't very often exist; states may not give the "secondary consent" to the jurisdiction of the court. The one exception to the International Law Commission is the crime of "genocide." This makes sense because genocide is a crime condemned by customary international law.

Proposal by Professor Caflisch: If genocide comes before the ICC even without special consent of states, why shouldn't ALL crimes based on "international custom" be within the jurisdiction of the ICC even without the "secondary consent" of the involved states.

Another proposal: use "opt out" instead of "opt in." The presumption would be that by agreeing to the statute, states have agreed that enumerated crimes will be within the jurisdiction of the ICC. States could avoid the ICC ONLY by "opting out."

GERMAN PROPOSAL: All "core crimes" (including "customary crimes") are prosecuted by each state based on its "universal competence" to prosecute such customary crimes. Thus, by joining the ICC statute, states would be presumed to have "delegated to the ICC their universal competence" over "core crimes." Therefore, all states that have joined the statute would have agreed to submit crimes to the ICC. "This is an elegant and ingenious solution; the only problem would be whether the custodial state has joined the statute."

PROFESSOR: several problems with proposal -- it is not clear that states DO have "universal jurisdiction" over "core crimes," and many states may be reluctant to cede such broad powers to the court.

BRITAIN'S PROPOSAL: There will be jurisdiction so long as the custodial AND the territorial states have joined the statute.

CONCLUSION: The court can't remain a paper tiger. It would be terrible to have a court that has no real teeth. Thus, the issue of inherent jurisdiction will be the biggest issue for the upcoming conference in Rome. "I urge all NGOs to ensure that the statute adopted in Rome includes the concept of inherent jurisdiction."

REMARKS OF PROFESSOR ABASAAD, from the former Yugoslavia:

My topic is the possible contribution of a potential tribunal to the notion of humanitarian law.

Modern humanitarian law found its development in the last half of this century. It was formed in the "womb" of traditional international law. The term "humanitarian law" only came into being in 1949. The purpose of humanitarian law was to benefit the individual, although it was enforced against nations. Therefore, the "sanctions" were applied against sovereign states. There were only two means of enforcement: war, and then compensation of the "victor" after the war.

The notion that humanitarian law operates directly on the individual has, to the present moment been very rare. The Nuremberg trials constituted a quantum jump in international humanitarian law; that court operated directly against individuals to prosecute them for war crimes. But Nuremberg did not establish a coherent set of norms. The crimes were developed ad hoc to reach certain, universally abhorred atrocities.

NOW, the big question is whether we can build on Nuremberg. The issue is whether the ICC even "needs" the notion of "war." Should the ICC reach only "war crimes" or should it extend to all "crimes against humanity." Here lies the great potential of the ICC: international law has created a huge body of norms, but no means of enforcing them. The ICC will finally present a mechanism for enforcement of those norms. The ICC would determine what the "elements" of various new crimes are, and then set about enforcing these newly defined crimes.

The developing ICC would permit evolution of ever more "finely tuned" norms. Right now, international courts have to charge everything as "genocide." This is overkill. With the ICC, we can develop new crimes to more realistically reach the condemned activities. We can develop a whole host of "crimes against humanity" that can operate in a coherent, integrated and worldwide fashion.

Law is not only what is "on paper," that is only a "snapshot" of law. The law changes. The Geneva Conventions and what came later were formed on models of armed conflict. But, since the Second World War, we have moved beyond the notion of "armed conflict" being the only subject of international law. We are moving to the notion of international human rights. This adaptation can only happen if we have organs that can make rational, development, progressive law to meet new circumstances as they arise. The ICC will be one such organ.

There is now a renegotiation of the enumerated crimes that will occur in Rome. NGOs must be vigilant that the crimes, as currently defined, are not "watered down" at Rome. Especially with gender crimes, we cannot water down our commitment to crimes against humanity.

REMARKS OF MR. GIANFRANCO DELL'ALBA, Member of the European Parliament from Italy:

He is one of the 20 "amici curiae" of the ICC. He is not a lawyer, so he can't speak as a lawyer.

This is my great hope: we must keep the momentum going; we must have a success in Rome. After 50 years of negotiation, we are finally reaching a decision to have a five-week negotiation in Rome. This is the 50^th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The best way to give the world a 'present' on this occasion is to create an ICC.

There are strong supporters of the Court, and others that detract.

ONE THING IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR; ANY ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURT WILL REQUIRE CESSION OF SOME ASPECT OF SOVEREIGNTY. We can't have a court without states giving up part of their sovereignty. After 50 years, we are ready to give up sovereignty in Europe. Now is time for the world to do a small thing in the same direction. Like-minded states should work together to create the court. All countries agree with the notion of the Security Council, etc. We should now agree to create the court. Some states (US and France) have some concerns.

Senator Helms has stated that "never during his life" would he assent to an international criminal court. So, there are particular problems with the US and France.

Also problems with the scope of prosecutorial power: "We don't want a Ken Starr."

There is consensus on some issues. In April we dealt with procedural matters. We reached agreement that the ICC would be an independent entity with a special relationship with the UN. The financing of the Court will begin with the UN, and later members of the nations will directly support the ICC. Plus, there will be a Special Commission of signatory nations to start up the court.

My feeling: we need to have the broadest possible statute in Rome. Biggest danger: to leave anything undone at Rome. Procedural matters, financing, the relationship with the Security Council, powers of prosecutors, definition of "core crimes" are ALL primary concerns of the Rome Conference.

The European Union has asked, and received permission for NGOs to have full participation in Rome.

CONCLUSION

REMARKS OF MRS. MONA RISHMAWI, International Commission of Jurists and UN Independent Expert on Human Rights in Somalia:

The meeting in Rome must focus primarily on gender concerns. We must not "lower" our concerns for the protection of women. We already have proscriptions against rape; we must have more.

Also, we want to be sure that the statute doesn't need very many ratifications to become effective. Some have talked of 60. The number should be MUCH lower than that before the court becomes effective.

PLUS: we must be clear that the court has inherent jurisdiction; there should not be too many loopholes for nations to "opt out."

National courts and national legal systems have a role to play, but that role "should not be exaggerated." The "whole reason we need an international court is that national courts have not done enough, particularly to protect rights of the woman and girl child."

The court must be able to receive complaints from a variety of sources; from individuals and from NGOs. The "complainants" must have ample means of seeking redress; the court should not require heavy procedures or requirements of proof to initiate an action.

"The role of the court is not to protect the sovereignty of states, but to protect victims."

QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR:

1. Will there be such protections as jury trials? And will the jury be composed of NGOs?

Answer: Unlikely; would be too difficult to administer and jury system is open to serious questions.

2. Who will enforce the judgments of the court?

Answer: No court can enforce its own judgments, so there will have to be some mechanism created. Possibly the Security Council. Enforcement is the job of the "Executive Power" and that will be the United Nations, or some bureau of the UN system.

3. What is the process by which the jurisdiction of the ICC would be triggered? Could it be triggered by "announcements" of intended future action (such as statements made in Rwanda about "racial cleansing")?

Answer: Likely to be defined in the future statute of the ICC. Likely that the court's power could be "triggered" by statements such as those in Rwanda.

4. Who will decide whether the case is tried by the ICC or by a national tribunal?

Answer: if a case is brought before the ICC, the ICC itself will determine whether it has jurisdiction over the case. The ICC may, however, consider whether it should "remand" a matter to a national court because it has either been "fully" or "adequately" handled by a national court. But, the application of the norms that set the limits between the ICC and national courts will be done by the ICC -- NOT by the national courts.

The Cost of Sustainable Development

A Briefing Paper

Prepared for the Missouri State Legislature
by
Henry Lamb, Executive Vice President
Environmental Conservation Organization

If there is a bedrock principle upon which our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our nation was constructed, it is this: government is empowered by the consent of those who are governed.

To translate this principle into self-governance, our Constitution provides for public policy to be enacted by elected representatives of those who are governed. To further protect those who are governed, our Constitution ingeniously balances the power of government among the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches. Balance occurs as the result of continuous competition among the branches of government, and among the three levels of government, federal, state, and local. American society is organized around this bedrock principle. The first course of bricks-and-mortar in our government, however, is the requirement that public policy be enacted by officials elected by those who are governed.

There are people who believe this method of public policy development is obsolete. The President's Council on Sustainable Development, for example, says:

"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change; and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals."¹

There are people who believe there is a more important principle around which society should be organized. The Vice President of the United States says:

"We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization. Adopting a central organizing principle -- one agreed to voluntarily -- means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action -- to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system. Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change -- these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary."²

We are witnessing in Missouri, and across America, a shift in the way public policy is being made. The power to make public policy is shifting away from elected officials to non-elected individuals who are using the "new collaborative decision process" to reorganize society around the central principle of "protecting the environment."

Were this initiative to arise from the people who are governed, expressed through their elected officials, defined and debated in public, and decided through a public vote by the appropriate governmental bodies, then there could be no complaint. But neither the change in the decision process, nor the adoption of "protection of the environment" as society's central organizing principle, are initiatives that arise from the people who are governed. Both ideas arise from the international community, crafted into policy documents by the United Nations and presented to the world through United Nations Conferences, particularly the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Agenda 21, a 288-page "soft-law" (non-binding) document adopted by 179 nations in Rio, sets forth very specific public policy objectives designed to reorganize societies around the central principle of protecting the environment. The process called for is "a new collaborative decision process" called consensus building.³ To comply with the UN's recommendation, Executive Order 12852 was issued June 29, 1993, creating the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The Council, consisting of 29 non-elected federal officials and selected representatives of major environmental organizations and industry, proceeded to translate Agenda 21 into 154 specific public policy recommendations to be implemented throughout America. The purpose of the policy recommendations is "to achieve our vision of sustainable development." The Council adopted the UN's definition of sustainable development:

"...to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."⁴

Throughout Missouri and across America, communities, both rural and urban, are being transformed into "sustainable communities," through the implementation of public policies that originate in Agenda 21, and other UN documents, Americanized through the President's Council of non-elected officials, and brought to local communities through a coordinated program of "collaborative consensus building" facilitated by trained experts.

The Congress of the United States -- elected by those who are governed -- has not enacted legislation that defines or authorizes a national policy of sustainable development. No state legislature has enacted legislation that defines or authorizes a policy of sustainable development. Nevertheless, the policies conceived by the international community are being implemented in local communities in Missouri and across America.

For example, in November, 1995, the Missouri Department of Conservation issued a 175-page draft of Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP). The plan was not created in response to legislation reflecting the demands of the private owners of 93% of the land in Missouri, the people who are governed; it was created to "...sustain our natural environment," and because "other state and federal agencies have already begun efforts like CRM...."⁵ Moreover, the plan endorsed the creation of a UN Biosphere Reserve in the lower Ozarks, a project sponsored by The Nature Conservancy, (whose income exceeded $1 billion in 1996, and whose assets total more than $1.3 billion) whose national president is a member of the PCSD, and several federal agencies headed by appointed officials who also are members of the PCSD.

As a result of local citizen response, the CRM was terminated on March 19, 1997 by Jerry Conley, Director of the Missouri Department of Conservation. In a March 27 press release, Conley ridiculed citizens' groups that had expressed concern about the United Nation's influence on the CRMP as "pure unadulterated bunk." He said concerns about shifting governmental authority over to non-elected groups was "absolute hogwash."⁶

An analysis of the CRM, however, revealed objectives, methodology, and language, very similar, and in some cases identical, to those found in Agenda 21, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and Sustainable America: A New Consensus. Consider the evolution of the following idea:

Agenda 21: "Compile detailed land capability inventories to guide sustainable land resources allocation, management and use at the national and local levels"(Chapter 10.7(f) p. 86).

Global Biodiversity Assessment:"Include methods that limit the use of land resources through zoning schemes; use incentives and tax policy to foster particular land-use practices; create and enforce tenure arrangements...and establish easements...that seek to establish landscape characteristics favourable to biodiversity" (Section 13.1.3(5), p. 926).

Sustainable America:"Government agencies, conservation groups, and the private sector should expand the use of ecosystem approaches by using collaborative partnerships...for sustaining ecosystems and biodiversity. Develop indicators which can be used to monitor the status of ecosystems...for restoring damaged ecosystems." (Chapter 5.2(1-5) p. 119).

Missouri's CRMP:"Determine current status, prioritize, select and maintain/restore selected reaches or watershed units...(Objective 1.2(a)). Manage private lands in the watersheds of identified priority stream reaches to ensure protection of target biological communities through partnerships, watershed committees, incentives and other methods (Objective 1.2(c)). Support the establishment of an Ozark Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. Seek formal designation as a U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, and work towards implementation of its goals/objectives." (Objective IX.1(A&C).

This minute sample only suggests that the Missouri plan may have been influenced by ideas that first emerged in Agenda 21 and other UN documents and the PCSD. A more comprehensive reading of Agenda 21, Chapter 10 "Integrated Approach to Planning and Management of Land Resources," and the Global Biodiversity Assessment, Section 13 "Measures for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components," will reveal that the entire plan is based largely on the ideas first advanced in these documents.

Even though the CRMP was terminated, its very existence is evidence of the effort to reorganize society around the central principle of protecting the environment, rather than around the central principle of government empowered by those who are governed. Until the latter half of the 20^th century, natural resources on, and under the land, were considered to be the property of the person who owned the land. Throughout the United Nations documents, as well as the policy documents of the agencies of the federal government, natural resources are considered to be a "public resource" whether on private or public land. The CRMP displays the influence of that changing attitude. The people who own 93% of the land in Missouri believe they still own the natural resources on their land and they did not ask the federal government or the state government to "plan" how they might use their property. Their resentment resulted in the plan's termination. But that only slowed the process; it did not end the federal government's determination to comply with the recommendations of the United Nations.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) is seeking to implement a Memorandum of Agreement with Missouri Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Such an agreement would make "partners" of the local Districts in the federal agency's expanded program of comprehensive natural resource planning.

The influence of Agenda 21, and other United Nations treaties and policy documents is very clear in the implementation of land use policies in rural America. The United Nations policy on land use was adopted in 1976 by the UN Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I). The Preamble says, in significant part:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."⁷

Twice during the 1970s, minority interests in Congress attempted to pass the Federal Land Use Planning Act, which embraced the UN policy on land use. Twice, the effort failed. Nevertheless, the federal government, through the implementation of administrative rules and regulations, has continued to pursue a policy of "public control of land use."

The UN's policy of "public control of land use" is not limited to rural lands. Agenda 21 speaks profusely about controlling land use and human behavior in urban areas. The second UN Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT II), held in Istanbul in 1996, was devoted exclusively to "sustainable communities." The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was asked to prepare a report on the United States' progress toward achieving the sustainable communities described in Agenda 21. The 26-page report was prepared by HUD's Andrew Euston, who says:

"One choice is to go as we go and do as we do -- without regard to the grave cumulative changes that have undermined the earth as humanity's cornucopia, our bread basket, our source of health, vitality and pleasure, and of hope for our future. This, we are told by science, is the unsustainable choice. The other choice is to create a deliberate transition to sustainability -- that is, to design it, for one definition of the word `design' is `to intend' for a definite purpose".⁸

"To go as we go and do as we do" describes the individual freedom that arises from a government that is empowered by the consent of those who are governed. Such actions are clearly "unsustainable," according to HUD, operated by non-elected individuals, unaccountable to those who are governed. Euston further describes the sustainable communities his "Agenda for Sustainability" intends to create:

"Sustainability is a fresh ethical paradigm for science, for society and for every responsible and concerned individual. It is a shift required of modern society as a whole. There will be the linking up of networks of communities of varied sizes within quite varied and multiple regional contexts, such as `Community Constellations' linked by compacts based upon common interests. Between the communities will be rural landscapes -- highly functional landscapes -- based upon entirely fresh understandings of landscape ecology."

"For this hopeful future, we may envision an entirely fresh set of infrastructures that use fully automated, very light elevated rail systems for daytime metro region travel and nighttime goods movement; we will see all settlements linked up by extensive bike, recreation and agro-forestry `E-ways' (environment-ways); for most communities transit, walking and bikes become people's preferred choices because they work and because people want it that way. We will be growing foods, dietary supplements and herbs that make over our unsustainable reliance upon foods and medicines that have adverse soil, environmental, or health side-effects (urban gardening, suburban edible landscaping, urban-rural truck farming and community-supported farming); less and less land will go for animal husbandry and more for grains, tubers and legumes. Gradually, decent standards of equity will be in place for women, for children and for the disadvantaged."

"At all levels of governance there must be commitment to the integration of society's social, economic, and ecological objectives. This local rebalancing can be done within the dictates of natural ecology, and this task has become civilization's central challenge -- an enterprise termed here `Sustainable Community Development.'"⁹

Euston's vision, which is the vision of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, did not arise from those who are governed, expressed through a publicly debated law enacted by duly elected representatives of those who are governed. His vision emerged from United Nations agencies, codified in Agenda 21, refined by the President's Council on Sustainable Development, and is now being implemented in Missouri, and across America, not by state legislatures and county commissioners, but by "Visioning Councils," and "Stakeholder Councils," consisting of non-elected individuals who are not accountable to those who are governed.

With great fanfare, St. Louis has launched its quest for "St. Louis 2004." Even the most cursory analysis readily reveals the influence of the top-down wisdom of the United Nations, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Development. One of the objectives of St. Louis 2004 is to "Inventory the region's plants, animals and ecosystems." The PCSD says "Convene planning sessions among all stakeholders to agree on ...methodologies for collecting data and conducting assessment of...biodiversity."¹⁰ Agenda 21 says: "Undertake long-term research into the importance of biodiversity...with particular reference to new observations and inventory techniques."¹¹

Another objective is to create "Sustainable neighborhoods - Support residents in the creation of self-sufficient neighborhoods." HUD's vision of a "Sustainable Community," is discussed above. The PCSD says:

"...provide incentives for regional collaboration on issues such as transportation...,and land use, that transcend political jurisdictions. Develop design tools [which] include model building codes; zoning ordinances; and permit approval processes for residential and commercial building, use of recycled and recyclable building materials, use of native plants that can reduce the need for fertilizers, pesticides, and water for landscaping...."¹²

Agenda 21 calls for:

"Adopting and applying urban management guidelines in the areas of land management, urban environmental management, infrastructure management.... Developing local strategies for...integrating decisions on land use and land management. To improve the social, economic, and environmental quality of human settlements, countries should adopt the monitoring guidelines adopted by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT)...."¹³

Still another objective of St. Louis 2004, Air Qulaity, is an "apple-pie-and-motherhood" recommendation behind which lies all manner of planned regulatory initiatives to implement recommendations of the PCSD, Agenda 21, and the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The PCSD's revised Charter instructs the Council to:

"not debate the science of global warming, but...instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies."¹⁴

The instruction to "not debate the science" is consistent with the administration's position on global warming, despite growing skepticism in the scientific community about the human influence on global climate. More than 140 climatologists and astrophysicists have now signed the Leipzig Declaration, which says, in part:

"The policies to implement the [climate change] treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models -- and unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree. Many climate specialists now agree that actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever -- in direct contradiction to computer model results. Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty action."¹⁵

In 1992, Agenda 21 called for governments to promote and develop "integrated energy, environment, and economic policy decisions for sustainable development, and integrated rural and urban mass transit for sustainable social, economic and development priorities."¹⁶ With the approval of the administration, the United Nations adopted the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change which requires that the United States reduce its greenhouse gas emission to a level seven percent below 1990 levels by the year 2008-2012. The President has announced that he will sign the Protocol.

The PCSD, and the administration, have been preparing to comply with the requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for several years -- without debating the science. Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) discovered an internal memo within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), prepared by Michael Shelby in EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. The memo set forth 39 measures that could be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- without Congressional involvement. Some of the measures discussed in the memo include:

• Tighten CAFE standards from the current 27.5 mpg to 33.5 in 2010; 40.9 in 2020; and 45.1 in 2025.
• Levy a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline using the obscure Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which allows the Secretary of Commerce, not the Congress, to authorize a gas tax in certain circumstances.
• Use BACT (Best Available Control Technology) as a condition for construction permits. "The EPA could begin raising objections to state determinations..." the report advises.
• Full pricing for roads -- which would require states to match federal funds with monies derived from "user fees,"
• EPA-mandated emission control technology required in State Implementation Plans.
• Pay-at-the-pump insurance program (25-cents per gallon).
• Emission-based registration fees.¹⁷

When the President signed the New Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) into law, more than 700 counties instantly fell into "non-attainment," which authorizes the EPA to implement whatever measures it chooses to force those counties into compliance -- without Congressional involvement.

The extent to which Agenda 21 and the PCSD have influenced public policy in America is truly astounding, especially since there has been no Congressional debate, or definition of "sustainable development," or authority for its implementation. It may be surprising to Representatives Joan Bray and Russell Gunn that their HB994, which creates the "Environmental Equity and Justice Commission," would comply with the recommendations of both Agenda 21 and the PCSD. Agenda 21 says "Governments should carry out exposure and health assessments of populations residing near uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and initiate remedial measures."¹⁸ The PCSD says, "Environmental Equity: Develop measures of any disproportionate environmental burdens (such as exposure to air, water, and toxic pollution) borne by different economic and social groups."¹⁹ Other objectives of St. Louis 2004 that are prescribed by the United Nations and the PCSD include: Race and difference summit; Safe places for kids; Employer commitment to education; Downtown revitalization; Regional Park and Greenway system; New industries; Land trusts; and Minority and women-owned business expansion.

It is possible that the non-elected individuals who worked "collaboratively" to identify the objectives of St. Louis 2004, accidentally reached the same objectives set forth by the United Nations. Indeed, is is likely that few of the participants ever heard of Agenda 21, or Sustainable America: A New Consensus. It is certain, however, that the facilitators of the "collaborative consensus process," are quite familiar with both documents.

Similar "Visioning Councils" and "Stakeholder Councils" are at work across America. In Florida, the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is implementing a "Demonstration project" consisting of five "Sustainable Communities." A spokesman for the DCA denied that the program had anything at all to do with the United Nations. The program's objectives, however, are nearly identical to those of St. Louis 2004. In Santa Cruz, California, the plan is actually called "Local Agenda 21," and the objectives are a mirror-image of St. Louis 2004. Such is the case across America.

Elected officials should be concerned about both the substance of such "visions" or plans, as well as about the process by which such plans are devised. All such plans are justified by the desire to create a "sustainable future." Americans should demand that above all, any plans for the future must protect and preserve the bedrock principle on which America was founded: government is empowered by the consent of those who are governed. It is that principle, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, that guarantees individual freedom, private property rights, free markets, and national sovereignty. Neither the bedrock principle, nor the fundamental freedoms it provides, are mentioned in Agenda 21, or Sustainable America: A New Consensus. Existing government processes are said to be "intractable,"²⁰ while the President's Council on Sustainable Development calls for "a new collaborative decision process...."

The "consensus-building" process is designed to by-pass the intractability of elected government officials and the process set forth in the U.S. Constitution. It is a "top-down" policy development process that was initiated with the adoption of Agenda 21, nationalized through the President's Council on Sustainable Development, and is now being implemented by an army of NGOs (non-government organizations), largely coordinated by federal government agencies and the international NGO leadership.

The World Resources Institute (WRI), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Maurice Strong's Earth Council (EC), and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), represent the international NGO leadership. The WRI, IUCN, and WWF are largely responsible for the development of Agenda 21 and the United Nation's social and environmental policies. The EC and ICLEI are largely responsible for implementation. According to Jeb Brughmann, Secretary-General of ICLEI, the organization was actually created by the UN.²¹ The WRI publishes a newsletter called NGO Networker, which reports the status of various NGOs' progress toward the implementation of UN policies.

At the local level, NGOs that initiate the consensus process rarely identify themselves with Agenda 21, or any of the international NGOs. The process is designed to appear to be a purely local initiative resulting from the demands of the local community -- ostensibly, the people who are governed. Rarely, however, does the community at large --the actual people who are governed -- even learn of the process until it is well underway. Typically, the individual or organization that initiates the consensus process in a local community is affiliated, and often funded, by one or more of the international or national NGOs. The first step is to identify other individuals and organizations in the community known to be sympathetic with the goals of Agenda 21. Those individuals are invited to participate in the organization of the effort. A "Visioning Council" will emerge, consisting of individuals selected because of their predisposition of support for the aims of the effort, and to reflect "representation" from across the community spectrum. The Council then holds a series of meetings to solicit input from the community.

Two important problems arise from this process: first, the participants who provide input are often carefully selected, especially in the formative stages; and second, the input solicited is in response to a predetermined agenda. Often, the participants are not aware that the agenda has been predetermined. The facilitator at these meetings is often a trained professional, hired for the purpose. The facilitator's purpose is to "build consensus." Consensus is not agreement; it is the absence of expressed disagreement.²² As the process continues, the local media is recruited to report the wonderful work of "citizens" of the community to develop a "vision for the future." Occasionally, professional public relations consultants are used to develop a positive community context for the unveiling of the vision document. By the time the final document is presented, local elected officials have little choice but to support the program. Politicians, as well as individual citizens, who express concerns about the program are labeled as "anti-environmental," or worse. The consensus process is an ingeniously designed and skillfully implemented process to by-pass local elected governing bodies and the larger community of people who are governed.

The final step is implementation. No policy document developed by non-elected officials carries the weight of law. Therefore, it is necessary to find ways to get the policies written into enforceable law. Early in the process, federal, state, and local administrative officials are brought into the process at the local level. Federal agencies have long ago found ways to reinterpret existing legislative authority to allow for the implementation of Agenda 21 objectives. Ron Brown, then-Secretary of the Department of Commerce, told the 10^th meeting of the PCSD that his Department had determined that they could implement 67 of the PCSD's 154 recommendations within the framework of existing legislative authorities. The Department of Interior is implementing the Ecosystem Management Policy, by reinterpreting existing legislative authority. The EPA is implementing Agenda 21 objectives, and the objectives of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, by revising existing Clean Air Standards through the rule promulgation process. Using the carrot-or- stick method, federal agencies are using incentives or penalties to encourage state and local agencies to do the same. Where existing authorities cannot be stretched enough to accommodate the objectives of Agenda 21, new incremental legislation is proposed, or administrative rule changes are initiated.

To ensure overall compliance with the community vision developed by the local Visioning Council, a favored technique is to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Visioning Council, or a quasi-public entity created to succeed the Council, and the various governing bodies within the multi-jurisdictional area embraced by the plan. The MOA typically requires any development approval by any of the local governing agencies to be approved by the Council as a means to coordinate implementation of the plan throughout the plan area.

The local plan often takes several years to complete, but when complete, the transformation of society around the central organizing principle of protecting the environment is well established. The central organizing principle of government empowered by the people who are governed is effectively relegated to the ash heap of history.

Endnotes

1. "We Believe Statement number 8," Sustainable America: A New Consensus, President's Council on Sustainable Development, February, 1996, p. vi.

2. Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), pp. 269-274.

3. Agenda 21, Paragraph 2.4, p. 19.

4. The World Commission on Environment and Development, (The Brundtland Commission), Our Common Future, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 43.

5. Missouri Department of Conservation, "The Big Picture: Questions and Answers About Coordinated Resource Management," p. 2.

6. Missouri Department of Conservation, Outdoor News via MissouriLink, Product ID: 352, March 27, 1997.

7. United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I), Agenda Item 10, "Preamble," Vancouver, British Columbia, May 31-June 11, 1976.

8. Andrew Euston, Community Sustainability: Agendas for Choice-making & Action, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, September 22, 1995.

9. Ibid.

10. Sustainable America:, Op Cit., Chapter 10(7)(1), p. 136.

11. Agenda 21, Op. Cit., Chapter 15.5(f), p.132.

12. Sustainable America:, Op Cit., Chapter 4(1)(2); 4(3)(1), pp 91-95.

13. Agenda 21, Op. Cit., Chapter 7.4, 7.9(h), 7.16(a), pp. 52-54.

14. Revised Charter, President's Council on Sustainable Development, April 25, 1997, p. 7.

15. The Leipzig Declaration, adopted in Leipzig Germany, November 9-10, 1995, published in its entirety (with all signers as of December, 1997), in ecologic, November/December, 1997, p.12.

16. Agenda 21, Op. Cit., Chapter 9.12(b); 9.15(a), p. 79.

17. Michael Shelby, EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation memo, "More Tons One-Pagers," May 31, 1994, (on file).

18. Agenda 21, Op. Cit., Chapter 20.21(c), p. 201.

19. Sustainable America: Op. Cit., Chapter 1, Goal 3, p. 16.

20. "Community Sustainability," HUD, Op., Cit., p. 5.

21. Joan Veon, "Earth Council: Rio+5," ecologic, March/April, 1997, p. 17.

22. Richard H. Graff, Techniques of Consensus, reported in ecologic, March/April, 1997, p. 13. Graff says: "A well-crafted question provokes thought and elicits no response."

How the UN Influences Domestic Policy

CASE STUDY OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT, THE BIOSPHERE RESERVE PROGRAM,
THE WORLD HERITAGE PROGRAM & THE WILDLANDS PROJECT
IN THE GREATER YELLOWSTONE ECOSYSTEM

by Tom McDonnell

The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming makes an excellent case study of how the international community, federal agencies and environmentalists are using a variety of tools to fully implement the practices of Conservation Biology. Ideally, these groups wish to see Yellowstone National Park become a core protected area free from all human activity; surrounded by a buffer zone of extremely limited access; connected by corridors to other ecosystems in Canada, Colorado and Washington. The region has been targeted by the environmentalists in what they call their Wildlands Project. The region is included in the east- side ecosystem management proposal being developed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. And the region has been designated a United Nations' World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve by the international community.

Yellowstone National Park was designated a United Nations World Heritage Area in 1978. In the original request for designation as a World Heritage site, a buffer zone made up of the six surrounding National Forests was proposed. Part of this buffer zone was established in 1978 with the designation of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness area to the north and east of the Park. However, this designation excluded a mining area near the south border of Yellowstone as a result of the U.S. Geological Survey's prediction of future mineral development. Part of this excluded region had already been mined. As early as 1875, ore was smelted in the region. By 1952 gold production in this area made Park County the third largest gold production area in the state of Montana.

In the late 1980's, Yellowstone received a double United Nations designation when it was also designated a biosphere reserve. Using the biosphere designation as their authority, federal agencies and environmentists made their first attempt to implement an 18 million acre buffer zone in 1990 through what is known as the Greater Yellowstone Vision Document. This document was met with a huge outcry by the public and the states of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The Directors of the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service who formed a regional coordinating committee to manage the ecosystem were all removed from their positions the following year.

In 1993, Michael Finley was named Yellowstone's park superintendent. He had already established a reputation in the Everglades National Park for getting the park designated as a United nations World Heritage site in danger.

Unknowingly, Crown Butte Mines was about to become the poster child for environmental groups' second attempt at implementing a buffer zone around Yellowstone. In 1987, Crown Butte Mines began developing a project that would extract an estimated $750 million worth of gold, silver and copper from an old mining district that sat one mountain range away from Yellowstone National Park. The New World mining project is unique in that the region had already been mined since before the turn of the century. Past mining activity had stopped a mere 100 feet from the rich gold deposit that now forms the basis of the mining plan. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Crown Butte's proposal to build the New World mining project was subjected to intense review and fact-based research by more than 20 state and federal agencies for close to three years. Crown Butte was moving the mining proposal forward under some of the most stringent procedures in the world to ensure safety for the environment from all activities of the proposed mine.

To help maintain environmental quality, Crown Butte is proposing a cyanide-free process for removal of the gold in its underground mines. Even more importantly, the new mine will pay for the general reclamation of old mine dumps and the back-filling of historic operations. The mining company agreed to clean up Fisher Creek, which runs directly through the old mining district, and to clean up 250,000 tons of historic tailings in an adjoining watershed which have polluted a creek flowing directly into Yellowstone Park for over 50 years.

What the mine didn't foresee was that the United States was party to the United Nations Convention on World Heritage, and environmental groups such as the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and American Rivers, in concert with George Frampton, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, were about to short circuit domestic law by calling on the international environmental community to intervene in the project.

Under paragraph 56 of the United Nations Environmental Scientific and Cultural Organization's operational guidelines, UNESCO is "particularly concerned that all possible measures should be taken to prevent the deletion of any property from the List..." Therefore, UNESCO established the "Guidelines for the inclusion of properties in the list of World Heritage in Danger." Under paragraph 69, the nation "state" may request assistance from UNESCO if the state feels a designated heritage area is in danger. If a request is received, UNESCO is to establish a committee to work in consultation with the state party (in this case the Department of the Interior) to adopt a program for corrective measures.

On February 28, 1995, Greater Yellowstone Coalition and 13 other environmental groups wrote a letter to the United Nations Environmental Scientific and Cultural Organization asking UNESCO's World Heritage Committee to initiate an investigation of whether Yellowstone National Park should be included on the list of World Heritage in Danger as outlined under Section 69 of the UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. In addition to the New World Mining Project, these groups cited increased levels of tourism, geothermal development, road building, home building, new population clusters and efforts to control brucellosis in the park's bison as some of the threats to Yellowstone. In the same letter, these groups specifically stated, "[f]inally, the World Heritage Committee's Operational Guidelines recognize the need to protect World Heritage Sites from incompatible activities beyond their boundaries and specifically recommend the establishment of "buffer zones" around protected properties."

On March 6th Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage Centre wrote to the Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, George Frampton, about UNESCO's possible intervention into the NEPA and mine permitting processes as written under American law. In this letter, von Droste stated:

"While we have taken note that the conservation organizations have requested that the World Heritage Secretariat involve itself in the EIS process, we simply are not staffed to do so. We could...request IUCN as our technical advisors, to review the Environmental Impact Statement."

"It is important to note that Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention obliges the State Party to protect, conserve present and transmit to future generations World Heritage sites for which they are responsible. This obligation extends beyond the boundary of the site and Article 5(A) recommends that State Parties integrate the protection of sites into comprehensive planning programmes. This, if proposed developments will damage the integrity of Yellowstone National Park, the State Party has a responsibility to act beyond the National Park boundary."

"Examples of the need to act beyond park boundaries are found at the Everglades National Park, Glacier National Park and Glacier Bay National Park, all World Heritage sites. In two of the sites the Government of British Columbia acted to close major mining operations rather than risk possible damage to downstream World Heritage values in both Canada and the United States."

"Clearly if there are threats to World Heritage values the State Party has a responsibility to act. If enabling legislation is not adequate, new legislation should be considered, as was the case in Australia with respect to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage site."

On June 27, 1995, George Frampton, in response to the UNESCO letter discussed, Interior's sympathies towards the environmental concerns, and requested what was to be considered foreign intervention to American environmental laws as he wrote:

"With respect to the questions which you have raised regarding possible threats to the Yellowstone National Park World Heritage Site, Secretary Babbitt and I are informed of the non-governmental conservation group concerns as transmitted to the Centre. The Secretary and the National Park Service have clearly expressed strong reservations with the New World Mine proposal."

"While President Clinton has said publicly that he wants to see the highest level of environmental analysis employed so that the impacts can be accurately determined, it is unclear whether several specific concerns of the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, of other agencies, and of the conservation community will be taken into account in the EIS process."

"Until the scope and nature of the analyses are better defined and the matter is satisfactorily resolved without jeopardizing the values of Yellowstone, we believe that a potential danger to the values of the Park and surrounding waters and fisheries exists and that the Committee should be informed that the property as inscribed on the World Heritage List is in danger."

"Therefore, I wish to suggest that you and/or other representatives of the Committee, and, in particular, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) make an interim assessment of the New World Mine proposal and the related Environmental Impact Assessment process for the benefit of the Committee and report the findings to the Bureau and the full Committee during the December 1995 General Session."

It should be noted that Frampton's statements about the competency of the NEPA process and Yellowstone being "in danger" were made without any scientific evidence. On December 1, 1995, five months after Frampton had given Interior's opinion that international intervention was needed and Yellowstone was in danger, he wrote to UNESCO saying:

"The purpose of this document (the draft EIS) is to provide decision makers with relevant information to assist in selecting a preferred alternative and making final permit and other decisions. Upon release of the document a 60-day period of public and agency review will begin. Thus, until early 1996 when the draft document is published for public review, there will not be a factual basis for determining the full range of impacts to the resources of the Park. Moreover, until that time, it will not be possible to evaluate all of the studies and analyses that need to be part of such an assessment."

On July 7, 1995 the World Heritage Committee informed the Department of the Interior that it would send a delegation to comply with requests from the National Park Service and by the Assistant Secretary of Fish & Wildlife. The committee, however, stated that, "Due to the lack of available funds at the World Heritage Fund, the United States will assume the costs of the mission. The mission will study not only the mining project but also all the problems affecting Yellowstone (apparently very numerous)." With this letter, environmentalists and the administration initiated a full scale media blitz to soften public sentiment for UNESCO's arrival.

On August 25th, President Clinton flew to Jackson Hole and met with environmentalists. Following the meeting, Clinton announced a two year moratorium on all mining claims on 19,000 acres of federal land near Yellowstone National Park. This action seemed unnecessary since it had absolutely no impact on the New World project several watersheds away. The withdrawal did appear, however, to be an attempt by the administration to prejudice the media and public into believing that the danger of large scale mining development in the region was greater than it truly was, and into believing the area to be mined was pristine and untouched. The truth was that the area in which the New World project sat had already been mined, and most of the ore body was on private land which Crown Butte had purchased. At the same time, U.S. News and World Report ran an article in which the administration condemned the mining project.

Editorials, however, began appearing accusing George Frampton and Michael Finley of engineering the United Nations visit to sabotage the mine review after Superintendent Finley admitted in the Billings Gazette that "the National Park Service fears the permitting process, led by the U.S. Forest Service and Montana Department of Environmental Quality, will overlook alternatives to the mining company's plans." This fear was also backed by a statement found in a March 6, 1995 letter from UNESCO to George Frampton. It was soon to become evident that the main focus of the UNESCO tour was much more than for purposes of discussing the environmental costs and benefits of the New World Mine.

On September 7th, 1995, a delegation appointed by UNESCO's Bureau of the World Heritage Committee arrived in the United States for a five day tour to evaluate the threats to Yellowstone. In regards to the mine permitting process and NEPA analysis, the World Heritage Committee's Chairman, Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand, only stated that "The U.S. permitting process took a fragmented approach to weighing the impacts of the mine." According to Wyoming's Casper Star Tribune:,

"The committee was more interested in how a coherent ecosystem management strategy to protect Yellowstone could be fashioned out of competing laws and agency priorities."

"Committee Chairman Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand...[stated] that as a signatory to the World Heritage Convention Treaty, the United States has a duty to take steps to preserve the Yellowstone ecosystem across administrative boundaries of the park."

"Executive Director Bernd von Droste of Germany, asked if the EIS would be developed with the concept of critical buffer zones around the park in mind. "It's a bit too much piece-meal, doesn't speak to the biological interactions" outside park boundaries," he commented.

"Crown Butte President Joe Baylis asked what would constitute the boundary of the Yellowstone ecosystem. Moderator Tony Barnosky of the Mountain Resources Center at Montana State University replied that those boundaries have not been firmly established. There is general agreement that the ecosystem encompasses parts of Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, an area between 14 and 18 million square acres. Yellowstone Park itself covers roughly 2.3 million acres of the area."

The Billings Gazette in Montana gave a similar account of the meeting, saying:

"An international delegation examining a proposed gold mine near Yellowstone National Park said the United States may be overlooking the commitment it made, by signing a treaty, to maintain an uncompromised buffer zone around the national park. The president of the World Heritage Committee said he is inclined to suggest that the international panel urge the United States to expand Yellowstone Park to encompass millions of acres of national forest that surround it. `Certainly the forest areas around Yellowstone belong to the same ecosystem. All these lands must have protection so their integrity is not threatened, said' Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand, who heads the World Heritage Committee, which operates under the administrative umbrella of the United Nations."

"By requesting that Yellowstone be designated a World Heritage Site, as it was in 1978, the United States in effect pledged to manage the surrounding lands in a way that would protect the park," said Bernd von Droste, director of the World Heritage Committee.

These statements were met the next day with a huge outcry from the press, the public, and from the Congressional delegations of the surrounding states. Wichiencharoen quickly withdrew his statement, and Montana newspapers noted that the World Heritage Committee changed the direction of its discussions from buffer zones to the fact that "the U.S. Forest Service should manage the some 11 million acres of adjacent national forest to avoid projects that would stain the entire Yellowstone region." Newspapers went on to note committee discussions which indicated that, "Land managers should simply keep undisturbed regions undisturbed."

Dropping all discussion on the issue of buffer zones, the World Heritage Committee turned its attention to addressing the other threats to Yellowstone. The Billings Gazette covers discussion concerning other threats to Yellowstone as follows:

"The sometimes-tense discussion for the delegation's benefit on Monday jumped from the mine to logging to a sort of reverse American imperialism. Four representatives of the World Heritage Committee wound up a four-day visit to Yellowstone on Monday by reserving a conclusion on the mine plan, but hoisting red flags on other park fronts: geothermal development, tourist overcrowding and threatened grizzly bears."

"Park managers in Yellowstone and elsewhere must also figure out ways to better manage people who may otherwise love this park to death," von Droste said.

The Livingston Enterprise expanded on the additional threats identified by the World Heritage Committee:

First and foremost, the panel urged Americans to do whatever it takes to protect the underground plumbing system that feeds the park's famed geysers, bubbling mud pots and steam vents. They also said something should be done about increasing visitation, which is "overtaxing" the park's weakening road system and infrastructure. They expressed concern about the effects of logging, oil and gas drilling and home building on the ecosystem in and around the park.

Despite assurance from World Heritage officials that the panel would not make any decision on Yellowstone's status until a draft EIS was released, the committee advanced its analysis to UNESCO for consideration and Yellowstone was designated a World Heritage in Danger on December 5, 1995 with this announcement:

"Berlin, Germany. This morning the World Heritage Committee placed Yellowstone National Park in the United States, the world's first national park, on the List of the World Heritage in Danger. The Committee did so after extensive evaluation of both ascertained and potential threats to the natural ecosystem of the park. This designation was prompted by a proposed gold, silver and copper mining operation 2-1/2 miles from the Park, which specialists have stated would endanger three major watersheds of the Yellowstone River, imperils water quality in Yellowstone National Park, destroys important wildlife habitat, and degrades natural beauty and wilderness. Three days of public hearings in the Park also elicited other threats, including the increasing encroachment on important ecosystem lands which surround Yellowstone by timber harvest, oil and gas development, road building, mining, and home construction; and ever-increasing levels of visitation, jeopardizing the park's natural resources and diminishing the quality of visitor experience."

One month after UNESCO's visit to determine if Yellowstone should be listed as a World Heritage Site in Danger, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund announced its "Save Yellowstone Now" campaign to protect Yellowstone National Park and its adjoining 18 million acres.

The Yellowstone campaign closely parallels a similar campaign which Wildlands Project groups, the U.S. government and the World Wildlife Fund ran in 1994, called "Save British Columbia's Forests." The Canadian campaign successfully listed 19 million acres in the Tatshenshini-Alsek region of British Columbia, the Yukon and Alaska as a U.N. World Heritage site in December, 1994. Using the same World Heritage Committee as visited Yellowstone, environmentalists were also successful in stopping the Windy Craggy copper mine from being developed into what was thought to have been a world class mine. The campaign was also successful in raising millions of dollars in funds for the environmental groups who ran full page fund raising ads in newspapers in New York, Seattle and other metropolitan areas, and in listing the Waterton Lakes National Park and adjoining U.S. Glacier National Park as World Heritage Sites in 1995.

The "Save Yellowstone Now" campaign is multifaceted, and involves media, political, legislative and legal efforts of a number of environmental groups including the Greater Yellowstone Coalition. Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund is focusing its four-part legal strategy at "every federal management agency involved in Yellowstone -- the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service and Bureau of Lands Management." They claim they will use all environmental laws (ie., NEPA, ESA, Clean Water Act, National Forest Management Act and Clean Water Act) to achieve its goals. Their campaign targets logging, destructive road-building, mining, geothermal drilling, oil and gas drilling and rampant tourism, saying that "more people, in more cars, requiring more facilities, for more months out of the year -- are taxing Yellowstone to its very ecological limits."

The campaign started immediately in October of 1995. Sierra Club, in cooperation with the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, appealed a USFS decision on the Bridger-Teton National Forest to the south of Yellowstone National Park. As reported in the Rocky Mountain News, these environmental groups felt that the USFS's "proposal to close 283 of the Pinedale ranger district's 828 miles of roads did not go far enough."

On February 21, 1996, the Teton Valley Independent in Driggs, Idaho quotes Jim Angell of the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund as stating "[a] pair of lawsuits has already proved that excessive road building and excessive timbering threaten the endangered grizzly bear."

But industry was not the only one being attacked in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; tourism was being attacked just as heavily. Immediately following Park Superintendent Finley's arrival in Yellowstone, the National Park Service initiated an internal organizing process to revise Yellowstone's winter use plan. Under this process air quality was monitored and visitors surveyed. During the 1994 winter season there were 96 complaints out of 146,000 visitors, which to most people, would indicate a high level of satisfaction. The park service, however, did not interpret these statistics as satisfaction. Commenting on the park service statistics, Superintendent Finley stated, "Each winter, we receive more comments from visitors that their experience did not meet their expectations."

February 25th, an Albany, New York newspaper said "Mr. Finley has called for public meetings this month to discuss whether to limit snow-mobile access. 'Its not an easy question', he said; 'limiting access inside the park might just push snow-mobiles out into already overcrowded national forests nearby.'"

Again activities appear to be coordinated with those of environmentalists. On February 18, 1996, a Chardon, Ohio newspaper quoted Jasper Carlton, executive director of the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, as saying this about a legal challenge he plans to file this spring in Yellowstone, "We will insist on the complete elimination of the private motorized vehicles from the park in the winter."

In what appears to be an effort to save recreation on the north border of Yellowstone park, a bill was introduced into Congress in February which will designate a region of mixed public and private land a National Recreational Area if enacted. As in the case of the Crown Butte mine, appearances again are deceiving. Environmentalists on the Hells Canyon National Recreational Area of Idaho and Oregon have found recreational area designations extremely effective in restricting multiple uses on federal lands and for restricting development and use of private lands within the designated area through zoning.

In 1996, the Park Service and environmentalists appeared to be launching a major campaign against development within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. In February 1996, the New York Times ran an article on protecting Yellowstone which stated:

"Development outside a park's boundaries can seep in, and what happens inside can be felt beyond the broadest borders. That is why a United Nations conservation committee voted in December to designate Yellowstone National Park a World Heritage Site in Danger...' 'Indeed, economic growth in the greater Yellowstone region - an area much larger than the park itself, which is sometimes called the largest nearly intact natural ecosystem in the temperate zone - is 'one of the greatest long-term threats to the ecological integrity of Yellowstone National Park,' said Michael Finley, the park superintendent. The population of some communities are growing at the rate of 4 percent a year, he said, and if nearby counties in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana that surround the park were taken together as a single state, it would be one of the fastest growing in the country."

Will environmentalists and the administration be successful in implementing all of the components of conservation biology in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem? All the current indicators say they have a high probability of success. At present, the bigger question is how many years will it take them to fully implement their agenda?

(Tom McDonnell is the Director of Natural Resources for the American Sheep Industry Association,
and a Director of Sovereignty International, Inc.)

Essay:

America's Responsibility to the World

By Henry Lamb

America has a grave responsibility to the rest of the world. It is not to defend the defenseless from tyrant aggressors. It is not to provide relief to suffering. It is not to protect primitive biodiversity from the ravages of ruthless corporations. Nor is it to protect the non-industrialized southern hemisphere from the industrial pollution from the north. While we bear some responsibility in all these areas, it is trivial compared to our most important responsibility.

Our most important responsibility is to share with the rest of the world what may be humanity's greatest discovery: the bedrock principle of self-governance. Government governs best when it is empowered only by the consent of those who are governed.

It is such a simple concept, yet one which took centuries to grasp, and hundreds of thousands of lives to realize. Our founders cherished freedom most, but realized there had to be limits on freedom to avoid chaos. The dilemma: how to limit freedom without sacrificing it. The solution was mostly an accident: let the people whose freedom is limited, decide for themselves to what extent that freedom should be limited. The institutional machinery was built without a blueprint, but with profound hope. Madison, Jefferson, Mason, Hamilton, and the others who gathered in sweltering Philadelphia more than 200 years ago, created, not so much a government, as a process for self-governance.

The institutions through which the process flows are, collectively, the government. All of the faults with the system are at the same time its greatest assets. The system is awkward, cumbersome, contentious, painfully slow, and efficiency is certainly not its virtue. It is these inherent ills that ensure that whatever comes out will be what those who are governed really want. Throughout the process, those who are governed are free to debate, cajole, persuade, and influence their elected officials to advance their pet ideas. The conflict that arises from competing constituencies forces compromise which hones and refines legislative proposals which either emerge as laws, or are eroded into oblivion. The process is wonderful; the results, sometimes wonderful, sometimes disappointing, and sometimes disastrous. Prohibition comes to mind. The process allows for those who are governed to correct mistakes. Prohibition was enacted, because the majority of those who are governed wanted it enacted. It was repealed for the same reason.

American self-governance requires that the law of the land -- public policy -- be enacted only by elected representatives of those who are governed. The function of the executive branch is to administer the policies enacted by elected representatives. From time to time, the delicate balance between policy-making, and policy-implementation gets askew. Convincing arguments are currently advanced that the executive branch, in recent years, has usurped the policy-making function of elected representatives. There are also examples of the policy-makers getting into the implementation business. The system is self-correcting. The pendulum pointing to the correct balance is always swinging. Balance is precisely right only twice during the entire swing cycle, and then passes so quickly that no one even notices.

It is not America's responsibility to impose its system of governance on anyone. It is our responsibility to share our principle of self-governance with everyone -- and let each society build its own system as best suits its needs and desires.

The principle of self-governance in America expresses the belief that the individual is sovereign. His freedom is a gift of creation, as it is with every species on the face of the earth. Government is man's creation, and should possess no power beyond that