". . . ethnic conflict in California, in the early 90s. . . ."

I recall about that time a small neo-Nazi group wanting to hold a parade in a town in the state of Idaho, but this was opposed by other citizens of the town. So where in California was this ethnic conflict? And between which ethnic groups? And what was the nature of the conflict?

I agree that nationalism with conquest is bad. But oftentimes free-floating nationalism carries an implication of "We're better than they are," and this, in turn, can eventually lead to attempted conquest. "We (being better people) deserve their resources more than they do!"

Yes, eco-travel and fair trade are to be encouraged. But why via the United Nations?

The U. N. is not a tourist bureau. And regulating the movements of people, whether individually or in groups, is not the function of the U. N., nor should it be.

The U. N. has fallen short of what it was originally intended to be, largely because of the selfish nationalistic interests of some of its member states. The disputes the U. N. often tries to deal with the most generally occur over matters of human rights, frequently the way some nations treat their own people, especially ethnic minorities who have as much of a historical right to be there than the majority of the country's population.

The U. N. already has plenty on its plate to deal with. It has more important things to do than play tourist agent for eco-travelers.

WAV, learn something about the United Nations.

Don Firth