urg... I've spent the last 45 min going through all those links and some of the other ones people have posted. I've got to say, it is all not very satisfying.
One would think this sort of thing could be summarized in just a few pages. No one seems to know much about anything. I thought a story detailing the history of the national forest service was interesting and how it became corrupted.
I can see how people fear the UN heritage sites could become corrupted as well. But it looks to me like the UN has no actual soverignty over any of these sites. That is, the UN doesn't own the land, but only passes on complaints and recomendations to our federal agencies, which is an admittidly disturbing prospect, but anyone can attempt to do the same. There is definitly potential for abuse.
There is a lot of information, and I'll have to look through it some more. Right now it both smells fishy (some of the rhetoric and claims) and is disturbing at the same time. I can't make heads or tails of it. I do think we need to get out of the United Nations ASAP. Better safe then sorry. :)
I'll probably comment more after looking through it some more at a later date.
TK, A few years ago, a mining company was going to open a mine outside of Yellowstone, {If I remember right}, and A group from the U.N. complained that the mine was within "the buffer" zone they had recently outlines around the park. The company wasn't able to open the mine, and the U.S. government paid the company for the property, and all their expenditures getting the mine approval. Yellowstone is a U.N. "Biosphere" area. The U.N. spokesman when asked, "Who is in charge of the park?", answered, {in a very imperious tone I understand} "The United Nations". This "interferrence" is for real. Peace and love, George.
When you understand the whys, hows and whats of biospheres, then you will understand that the UN does have control over our parks and 'world heritage' sites. It was all done through treaties and international agreements.