[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15410-15412]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE MEDDLING IN THE INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF SOVEREIGN 
                           NATIONS--YET AGAIN

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. HELEN CHENOWETH

                                of idaho

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, July 1, 1999

  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, can you believe that the Clinton-Gore 
Administration may be working with the United Nations to override a 
decision by the sovereign, duly-elected government of Australia 
regarding an internal land-use issue in that country?
  On July 12th the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations 
Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) will meet in 
Paris, France for the purpose of stopping the proposed Jabiluka uranium 
mine near the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory of 
Australia. Mine opponents were unable to persuade the Australian people 
and their government to stop the mine, so they have appealed to the 
World Heritage Committee (WHC) of the United Nations. Since Kakadu 
National Park is a U.N. World Heritage Site, environmental and anti-
nuclear activists want the WHC to have Kakadu declared ``In Danger,'' 
thus making mine construction very difficult.
  The United States is a Member of the 21 nation World Heritage 
Committee, and the Clinton Administration is being lobbied by U.S. 
environmental and anti-nuclear activists to oppose Australia and vote 
in favor of the ``In Danger'' designation. The important issue here is 
protection of the rights of people in the democratic process of a 
soverign nation from interference by international bureaucrats with no 
accountability whatsoever. The Jabiluka mine decision fundamentally 
affects citizens of Australia and a global organization should not be 
ceded that role and its associated powers to in which affected 
Australians have no representation. If the United States does not 
oppose this interference of the WHC in Australia's internal affairs, 
then we will hardly be

[[Page 15411]]

able to complain when the WHC shows up on our doorstep to review some 
land-use decision in this country.
  I would like to put this letter signed by 40 of my colleagues in the 
Record. The letter urges President Clinton to direct the U.S. 
Delegation to the World Heritage Committee in Paris not to meddle in 
the Jabiluka issue in which the United States has no clear national 
interest--nor any business in becoming involved. I also want to put a 
newspaper article in the Record from the Sydney, Australia Daily 
Telegraph. This article provides crucial background information on this 
important issue. I urge every Member to become familiar with this very 
serious issue.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, July 1, 1999.
     Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
     President of the United States of America, The White House, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As you know, the House of 
     Representatives approved for the third consecutive Congress 
     the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 883) which 
     increases congressional oversight of UNESCO's World Heritage 
     and Biosphere Reserve programs.
       This legislation, which has 183 bipartisan cosponsors, is 
     partially a response to the international World Heritage 
     Committee's meddling in a dispute regarding a proposed gold 
     mine located on private property outside the boundary of 
     Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone has been designated as 
     a World Heritage Site. The World Heritage Committee, a 
     collection of unelected United Nations bureaucrats, voted in 
     Berlin, Germany to declare Yellowstone a World Heritage Site 
     In Danger in an effort to stop the mine. The Committee did 
     not seek local or U.S. congressional input, but acted after 
     only a brief visit to the park in 1995.
       All permitting decisions regarding the mine were being 
     considered pursuant to relevant state and federal laws 
     including the National Environmental Policy Act. Actions 
     taken by the World Heritage Committee were intended to short-
     circuit these laws and influence land use policies in the 
     United States. In short, it amounted to a significant threat 
     to the sovereignty of the United States. Any decision 
     regarding this proposed mine should have been made by U.S. 
     citizens and their elected officials; not by a committee of 
     enelected United Nations bureaucrats meeting in Germany.
       We understand the World Heritage Committee, of which the 
     United States is a member, will meet on July 12 in Paris to 
     consider designating the Kakadu National Park in Australia as 
     a World Heritage Site in Danger in an effort to stop the 
     proposed Jabiluka uranium mine which is located near that 
     park--a situation remarkably similar to that in Yellowstone.
       The duly elected Government of Australia has performed 
     exhaustive studies regarding the environmental impact of the 
     Jabiluka Mine. Based on these studies, it has concluded that 
     a properly regulated mine will not impair the park. 
     Consequently, Australian government authorities have 
     issued the necessary permits for the mine to proceed, and 
     the Australian government strongly opposes any 
     intervention by the World Heritage Committee.
       Australia's environmental record is exemplary. There is 
     another nearby mine, the Ranger mine, which has successfully 
     operated for many years without impairing the park. In fact, 
     one color picture used by the Australian Wilderness Society 
     in its 1999 annual calendar showed an idyllic wilderness 
     scene of Kakadu with the oft-photographed Mt. Brockman in the 
     background and a lovely picturesque lake in the foreground. 
     The lake--home to frogs and crococdiles--also happens to be 
     the Ranger mine's man-made retention pond.
       As in the case of Yellowstone, any dispute regarding an 
     Australian mine should be settled by the citizens of 
     Australia working with their elected leaders--not at some 
     obscure World Heritage Committee meeting thousands of miles 
     away in Paris. Our government has no business engaging in 
     exercises of eco-imperalism that undermine the sovereignty of 
     Australia's elected government.
       Any action by the U.S. delegation to support a World 
     Heritage Site in Danger status for Kakadu could threaten our 
     foreign relations with Australia which historically has been 
     among our strongest allies. We strongly urge you to direct 
     the U.S. Delegation to the World Heritage Committee in Paris 
     not to meddle in the Jabiluka issue in which the United 
     States has no clear national interest--nor any business in 
     becoming involved.
           Sincerely,
         Helen Chenoweth, Don Young, Greg Walden, John Doolittle, 
           David McIntosh, Jack Metcalf, Tom Tancredo, Jim 
           Gibbons, Bob Ney, Ron Paul, Van Hilleary, John Shadegg, 
           Joe Knollenberg, Barbara Cubin, John Peterson, Rick 
           Hill, Richard Pombo, Bob Schaffer, George Radanovich, 
           John Hostettler, Frank Lucas, Mike Simpson, Tom Coburn, 
           J.D. Hayworth, Sam Johnson, Asa Hutchinson, Dana 
           Rohrabacher, Roscoe Bartlett, John Duncan, Donald 
           Manzullo, Dave Weldon, Tom DeLay, Jo Ann Emerson, Kevin 
           Brady, Doc Hastings, Bob Stump, Bob Barr, Scott 
           McInnis, Wally Herger, Duncan Hunter,

                               __________
                               

                    Pitting Emotion Against Reality

       Maybe, just maybe, the UN is at last showing some spine on 
     environmental and indigenous matters.
       It's a big maybe but at least the UN's World Heritage 
     Commission has given the Australian Government six months 
     breathing space to counter the scurrilous propaganda put out 
     by environmentalists and some Aborigines about the 
     development of the Jabiluka uranium mine adjacent to Kakadu 
     national park.
       The report, prepared by a committee chaired by Italian 
     Francesco Francioni, is undoubtedly one of the most egregious 
     documents ever to come out of UNESCO.
       Environment Minister Senator Robert Hill was not 
     exaggerating when he damned it as ``biased, unbalanced, and 
     totally lacking in objectivity''.
       At a time when the United Nations' misguided committees are 
     coming under more fire than ever before, this sort of 
     criticism from a senior figure in a democratic government, 
     unlike most UN members, will attract the concern of senior 
     people up the UN ladder. And it should.
       Dr. Francioni's group not only failed to take into account 
     material on Jabiluka which would have added some balance to 
     its report, it actively avoided witnesses who could have shed 
     informed light on the issue and attempted to impugn the 
     integrity of others.
       Instead it was spoon-fed the usual pap from green and 
     Aboriginal activists and a mishmash of scientific data from 
     so-called experts who hadn't even visited the site.
       In most circles, the omission of evidence from key 
     scientific and Aboriginal groups in such a report would be 
     considered to constitute fraud.
       Not unexpectedly, the usual suspects are saying they're 
     outraged that the UN hasn't bought the report.
       Well, let them huff and puff and let them explain why the 
     report they cherish contains fundamental and humiliating 
     errors of law.
       For example, the report refers to the 1993 Declaration on 
     the Rights of Indigenous Peoples but last we heard, this most 
     contentious document was still being negotiated with just two 
     of its 45 draft articles being settled.
       The report seeks to rely on Australia's obligations under 
     two Conventions to which Australia is not a party and it 
     seeks to rely on another Convention relating to stolen or 
     illegally exported cultural exports, to which Australia is 
     not only not a party to, but which is also irrelevant.
       The UN mission relied almost exclusively on a submission 
     from four scientists from the ANU, three of whom have never 
     been on the Jabiluka mine site and whose refusal to accept 
     invitations could indicate an alarming degree of partiality.
       The mission claims the mine should be stopped because of 
     its visual impact but then conceded that it was not visible 
     to visitors to Kakadu park from the ground.
       It also makes reference to the disputed Boyweg cultural 
     site which is not in the World Heritage Area. (By the way, 
     the dispute over the site is between senior traditional 
     custodians at odds about the significance of the area.)
       But perhaps most importantly, the report, which relies 
     heavily on the emotional and very public arguments placed 
     before it by the media-savvy Yvonne Margarula, the current 
     senior traditional owner, ignores the fact that traditional 
     owners have twice given their consent to the Jabiluka 
     project.
       In 1982, the Mirrar people gave their consent to an 
     agreement with Pancontinental to allow mining on the lease, 
     and they consented again in 1991, when Pancontinental sold 
     its rights to ERA.
       Indeed, traditional owner Yvonne Margarula was part of a 
     Mirrar delegation to Canberra in 1991 which vigorously 
     lobbied the Labor government for mining at Jabiluka.
       Royalty payments were accepted and the validity of both 
     agreements is supported by the Northern Land Council.
       The UN committee, however, wants to introduce a new concept 
     to the law under which agreements can be torn up by 
     successive generations, ushering in an unworkable degree of 
     uncertainty which would cover all agreements with traditional 
     owners.
       Interestingly, former NT ALP Senator Bob Collins, has 
     attacked his former colleague, Senator Nick Bolkus, for his 
     uninformed approach to the dispute.
       Though most of the ideologically-tainted Australian media 
     chose to ignore Collins, he did take the trouble to read the 
     full report and its annexes and noted that contrary to 
     Senator Bolkus's assertions ``there was no recommendation 
     from the majority of the committee calling for immediate 
     halting to the Jabiluka mine''.
       The no-nonsense former senator has also gone on the record 
     to complain about the ``very small group'' of 
     unrepresentative Aboriginal people who were given the 
     opportunity to speak to the UN investigators.

[[Page 15412]]

       ``There is no acknowledgement whatsoever in this UNESCO 
     report--in any part of it--that there is a view of 
     traditional owners of the park that is different from the 
     view that was expressed by the people they spoke to,'' he 
     said in an interview on 2GB.
       As the former senator said, all Australians should be 
     concerned about the issues raised.