UN flag may fly above shrine of liberty if designated as a World Heritage Site
San Antonio, Texas Mayor Julián Castro is currently negotiating with the United Nations to designate the Alamo as a UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site, meaning that a blue UN flag may fly above the historic shrine of liberty once it falls under UN control.
UNESCO, a specialized agency within the UN, created the World Heritage Site status out of a 1972 international agreement, which calls for nations to join together to manage historical sites through “collective assistance.”
“San Antonio has the opportunity for its five Spanish Colonial Missions [including the Alamo] to be nominated to be the first UNESCO World Heritage site in the State of Texas and the 22nd World Heritage designation in the United States,” the October 2013 City of San Antonio newsletter reads.
The Alamo consists of both the Alamo chapel and the surrounding compound now referred to as the Alamo Plaza.
The Alamo chapel, which is what people tend to picture when they hear the name “Alamo,” is managed by the Texas General Land Office and the Daughters of the Republic of Texas.
The Alamo Plaza, where most of the fighting took place during the 1836 Battle of the Alamo, is administered by the City of San Antonio.
During the battle, at least 189 Alamo defenders sacrificed their lives for liberty instead of surrendering to the tyrannical Mexican president Antonio López de Santa Anna.
The Alamo emerged from the battle as a sacred shrine for individual freedom in the face of collective evil.
Now the shrine is besieged by the collective UN, whose policies follow Santa Ana’s dictatorial rule rather than the values the Alamo defenders died for “in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character” as Alamo Commander William B. Travis wrote in Feb. 1836.
How exactly would UN management affect the Alamo?
In 2002, the UNESCO World Heritage Center published a manual entitled “Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites,” which outlines UN obligations that the historic site managers are expected to follow.
The manual states that it is “the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate” in managing World Heritage Sites, meaning that bureaucrats from China or France could oversee and influence the Alamo’s operation.
One of the “protection obligations” of a World Heritage Site is the requirement to “use the World Heritage logo,” meaning that the Alamo Plaza would be adorned with UN symbols.
A UN flag may even be hoisted above the Alamo, which is typical at World Heritage Sites such as the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site in Illinois.
The manual also suggests strategies for restricting public access to heritage sites due to “environmental concerns” under the guise of “sustainable” tourism, borrowing key words from Agenda 21.
Some may say that if the Alamo is designated a World Heritage Site, which is expected by 2015, the UN wouldn’t necessarily control it because the Alamo would “remain” under sovereign jurisdiction.
Yet as we constantly see with Agenda 21, local city governments adopt policies “recommended” by the UN as if they were law.
The UN’s pressure has already been felt in San Antonio after the city nixed a proposed downtown hotel tower because it would have jeopardized the Alamo’s World Heritage status.
Other downtown businesses may suffer worse fates because, under the terms of the World Heritage Convention, governments are expected to protect heritage sites beyond their borders, infringing upon private property in the process.
In 1995, for example, then President Bill Clinton asked the UN to declare Yellowstone Park in Wyoming a “World Heritage Site in Danger,” giving him the “international obligation” to shut down a private mine three miles away from the park, even though the mine predated the park by 150 years.
Sovereign jurisdiction means little when governments and the UN are completely interconnected.
So once again, 177 years after the historic battle for liberty, the Alamo is under siege.