New "Cultural Diversity"treaty on the horizon
By Henry Lamb
April 14, 2007
A new U.N. treaty entered into force on March 18, 2007: the "Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions." This new treaty has been ratified by 56 nations, and it is only a matter of time (and who occupies the White House) before it is presented to the U.S. Senate for ratification.
The purpose of the treaty is to further integrate the world into a global village by applying a few more strokes of the international eraser to national borders and national sovereignty. Specifically, the treaty hopes:
"to strengthen international cooperation and solidarity in a spirit of partnership with a view, in particular, to enhancing the capacities of developing countries in order to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions."
This may sound innocent enough, especially since the treaty also proclaims the "Principle of Sovereignty," which means:
"States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to adopt measures and policies to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions within their territory."
This means that the exercise of national sovereignty must conform to "international law" as prescribed by the United Nations. This international law includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
These documents contain many great principles, many of which are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. They also contain important differences from our Constitution, such as the principle of free speech. The U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights promises free speech, but "subject to certain restrictions," as defined in Article 19(3).
As with all U.N. treaties, the language is broad, vague, and superficially appealing; the devil is in the details. The new treaty, for example, incorporates the "Principle of Sustainable Development." This vague, appealing statement is defined in another U.N. Document: Agenda 21, a 300-page, 40-chapter devil's brew of instructions on how everyone on Earth should live their lives.
These instructions are being implemented in every community in America, through often ridiculous provisions contained in "comprehensive planning" laws. The land use provisions of Chapter five of Agenda 21 are a refinement of still another U.N. document that declares: "...public control of land use is indispensable."
In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington cautioned:
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."
This insightful admonition has been ignored in recent years. The United States government has, indeed, entangled this nation in a web of U.N. treaties, each of which saps a little more national sovereignty, and subjects a once-free people to the "baneful foes of republican government."
This new treaty promoting "cultural diversity" should raise new alarms about the "North American Community" being pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations. The idea that national boundaries should be erased in favor of an integrated continent, that is integrated into a global village governed by the United Nations is repulsive to the idea of individual freedom, protected by a Constitutional government limited by the consent of the governed.
The issues raised here will not be discussed by any of the candidates now aspiring to the White House and Congress in 2008. Be assured, however, that these issues will be addressed by the successful candidates. Just as the people who now serve are confronting the demands of the Climate Change Treaty, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the World Heritage Treaty, and a host of others that are less visible, but equally demanding.
Treaties are necessary, and should be mutually beneficial to the parties involved. Treaties that are concocted by the United Nations are beneficial primarily to the United Nations, in that they expand the budget, scope and power of its governance. Parties to U.N. treaties are not mutually benefitted. There are winners and losers. Most often, the Unites States is a loser when it ratifies a U.N. treaty.
Any treaty that will benefit the United States can be negotiated without the United Nations - and should be. The new "Cultural Diversity" treaty offers no benefit to the United States. It would require financial support, and it would affirm, even further, the superiority of international law over the U.S. Constitution.
See biography for Henry Lamb
2007 Freedom.org. All rights reserved.