Americans do not need such a forum. Instead of a UN structure, the world would be better off adopting the system America's Founders established: a constitutional republic. Our U.S. Constitution and laws prescribe electing representatives and then holding them accountable at the polls. Former President Ronald Reagan fittingly called our system of government "a light on a hill."

Although most Americans consider the UN unnecessary, we have not convinced our elected representatives to leave the muddle. They consider the UN a forum for discussion with other nations, while disregarding its continual insults to our national sovereignty.

Other nations, however, see the UN differently. Throughout my decade of observations at UN meetings, I have seen nations use the UN to lobby their own corrupt governments or to beg for the redistribution of wealth, all the while ignoring the fact that their own corrupt governments cause their disorders.

During the UNESCO meeting in Paris, for example, Spain's Minister of Environment was the highest-level official to address the conference. She came not only to endorse UNESCO's Man and Biosphere, MAB program (a focus on biosphere reserves), but to also thank the president of MAB for his clarification of development allowed on a biosphere reserve, which was highly controversial within her own government. The controversy stemmed from a disagreement she had with her predecessor who was a family member of the former president. In order to thank UNESCO for their "help," she offered to host a major meeting for the MAB program in 2008 in Spain.

While much discussion during the Paris meeting concerned how much and what kind of development should be allowed in biosphere reserves, the debate should have been over WHO decides crucial decisions concerning private properties, the UN or sovereign governments. Following are examples of comments by delegates in Paris, which express the errant focus of most nations and the correct focus of the U.S.:

• The Chile spokesman said that development was very important within a biosphere reserve but that the core area must be conserved without development.

• Mexico's spokesman reminded conferees that the main function of a biosphere reserve is to conserve biodiversity. He defined that to mean that a non-binding methodology needs to be established to monitor the biosphere reserves. He challenged the MAB to be more daring to consider climate change, a reference to the global warming treaty and extraneous to MAB.

• Argentina's spokesman advised that there should be no roads in core areas.

• Costa Rica's spokesman said that the text being considered should be in simpler language. She added that she saw the Minister of Environment of France on television state that 18 animal species are being lost per minute. There was no follow-up discussion to her comment.

• The Czech Republic proclaimed that the existing three functions of biosphere reserves are very important and that a new category proposed by Austria was unnecessary.

• Finally, the U.S. UNESCO ambassador correctly concluded that representatives at this conference should communicate with their permanent delegations that are accountable to their national policymakers to resolve the debate. (My point exactly!)

The MAB meeting concluded today. These comments make it abundantly clear that the UN is NOT the last best hope for man and nations; instead, it is mostly an assemblage of broken governments. If those governments were working properly, then the majority of discussions at the UN would be moot.

America's constitutional republic is a model for other nations. The great American experiment proved that when people elect their representatives and hold them accountable at the polls, then a respectable forum for discussion and debate is created. The UN can never provide a substitute for that model.