Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /

US Approach to World Heritage

Page  Page 2 of 17:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  13  14  15  16  17  Next »  
Author winterkjm
Registered
#16 | Posted: 23 Mar 2012 00:21 
New video on US world heritage in relation to the 40th anniversary of the convention.

http://youtu.be/UySOekRPNfM

Author winterkjm
Registered
#17 | Posted: 1 Apr 2012 15:52 
A great summary of why the US cannot possibly fund Unesco.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-march-15-2012-

Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#18 | Posted: 2 Apr 2012 18:14 
That was rather great.

I love the Daily Show (I sometimes think I am more up to date with US politics than British purely because of that show and the Colbert Report)

For those outside the US that fancy a look here are some links that may show it.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#19 | Posted: 10 Apr 2012 03:01 

Author winterkjm
Registered
#20 | Posted: 16 Apr 2012 02:10 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Poverty Point nomination progress.

http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20120415/LIFESTYLE/204130305

Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings (Marin County Civic Center) nomination progress.

http://www.co.marin.ca.us/efiles/BS/AgMn/agdocs/120403/120403-6-AD-ltr-LTR.pdf

Author winterkjm
Registered
#21 | Posted: 8 Jun 2012 11:45 
*San Antonio Missions

The nomination dossier will be completed by the end of 2013, in time for consideration by the World Heritage Committee in 2015.

http://worldheritagematters.blogspot.com/

Author winterkjm
Registered
#22 | Posted: 29 Jun 2012 03:41 
The US has just changed the name of "Pueblo de Taos" to "Taos Pueblo".

Author Solivagant
Registered
#23 | Posted: 5 Jul 2012 05:18 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I came across a report - "The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues" whilst "wilfing" on various WHS matters. It was produced in Jul 2011 by the Congressional Research Service "for the benefit of Members and Committees of Congress".

It is largely a basic primer on the Convention and its systems but also provides a "view" on matters which might be of interest to Congressmen and a number of specific examples relating to US sites
a. The "Sovereignty issue"
b. Possible role of Congress in selecting WHS nominations
c. Implications of inscription

It is generally "favourable" and indeed identifies examples where actions by Canada/Mexico which were potentially negative to US interests were prevented by the Convention (no loss of "Sovereignty" there then!!!)

One fact I wasn't aware of is that the USA continued to make voluntary contributions to the Convention during those years when it wasn't a member of UNESCO (see Table 1)

See
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40164.pdf

Author winterkjm
Registered
#24 | Posted: 19 Jul 2012 03:41 
About a month or so ago I updated my review of the Frank Lloyd Wright Buildings tentative nomination. The new photos were added very quickly, but I noticed the text has still not changed.

The initial review was more than 2 years ago, so I updated the review as I had visited 2 other sites which make up the serial nomination.

Author elsslots
Admin
#25 | Posted: 19 Jul 2012 05:28 
winterkjm:
I noticed the text has still not changed.

sorry - done now

Author Solivagant
Registered
#26 | Posted: 8 Oct 2012 04:34 | Edited by: Solivagant 
I came across this resumee on the Federal Register Web site of progress to end Jun 2012 on the current US T List - primarily regarding the San Antonio missions but containing background for other sites as a result of comments received as part of a Consultation process commenced in March 2012.
Among several interesting points the following stood out for me
a. "The Department, on advice of the Panel, will initiate a process in cooperation with the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, a commission of the U.S. Department of State, to develop an appropriate method to update the U.S. tentative list with a target of completing the update in 2016, the year of the centennial of the National Park Service."
b. "A draft World Heritage nomination for the "San Antonio Franciscan Missions" may now be prepared. If it is submitted in substantially complete draft form to the NPS by May 1, 2013, a nomination may potentially be submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre by the United States by February 1, 2014". So, the earliest WHC would be that of 2015
c. "Mount Vernon, Virginia. The Department received two comments with various suggestions for how this site, which was unsuccessfully nominated in 2009, might be reformulated for possible nomination again in the future" . But NO commitment to do so!!
d. Civil Rights Movement Sites - "The Department agrees that additional sites will need to be added before this proposal could be considered for nomination, and plans to explore such an effort with the assistance of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO"
e. Hopewell Earthworks - "concluded that they would not attempt to include Serpent Mound in the proposal"

There is more within https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/26/2012-15586/us-nominations-to-the- world-heritage-list-san-antonio-franciscan-missions

It also seems worth referencing here the latest info on the Frank Lloyd Wright nomination process from the "2014 WHC" topic on this Forum. It doesn't receive any space in the "Federal Register"
http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=8&topic=1543&p age=1

Author winterkjm
Registered
#27 | Posted: 15 Oct 2012 04:43 

Author winterkjm
Registered
#28 | Posted: 12 Dec 2012 03:16 
Perhaps this article signals a change in US policy and understanding of UNESCO. Let's hope so!

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/11/4-costly-myths-about-world-heritag e/

Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#29 | Posted: 12 Dec 2012 05:54 
Hi winterkjm, I thought of you last week when I was watching this episode of the Daily Show. It had a section on the senate debate on Disability Rights mentioned in that article.

To be honest it just seems crazy, even if there are legitimate worries, the reasons so regularly put forward in many of the US/ UN relations are at best large distortions, at worst just outright lies (support for a US led non binding world wide promotion promotion of disability rights will stop children from being home-schooled in Nebraska!).

Though I think the author of that piece is stretching things a little to say the US and Al Qaeda are on the same side regarding Timbuktou.

Author winterkjm
Registered
#30 | Posted: 12 Dec 2012 16:28 
It is all ludicris really. There is inate fear in some US citizens of "land grabs", too much government, the UN, etc. Many American's do not like the idea of being bound by any kind of international law, treaty, or agreement.

This is not just a case with Unesco. In Arizona, recent ballot measures attempted to "take back" federal lands such as national parks for private, commercial, and industrial use. Luckily, the measure failed, or there literally could have been industrial activities being pursued in the areas surrounding the Grand Canyon! To many Americans this is absurd, a majorty actually otherwise Obama never would have won 2 terms. Countless years of the far-right attacking preservation efforts. For example reducing carbon being labeled as too much government and as a "job-killing" initiative. Focusing less on Oil drilling, "job-killer", reducing plastic bags, "job-killer", and so on. These attacks have left a large minority of American's to be completely biased and unbending toward government, the UN, etc.

It is not uncommon in political debate to demean Europe as a wasteful, lazy, socialist group of countries (as Romney did with absurd regularity). Europe is constantly portrayed in a negative light, primarily that EU citizens only demand more and more "handouts" from their government, but do little themselves. The far-right pushes an ideal that American's are self-made, and that their success is based only on their hard work (nothing about community). Everything is self-reliance, independent, nothing is collective. This philosophy leads to fierce attacks on welfare programs, education, or any other government spending that is not the military!!! It really is the worst notion of American Exceptionalism imaginable. Programs that work in other countries, or new ideas are viewed as wasteful and not compatible to the United States.

I don't want to go on forever, but it is frustrating.

Page  Page 2 of 17:  « Previous  1  2  3  4  5  ...  13  14  15  16  17  Next » 
Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries / US Approach to World Heritage Top

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

 

 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.
 
 
  www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®