Trust the United Nations to portray aiding dictatorships and protectionism as good news. In the name of “cultural diversity,” countries will soon be able to put up trade barriers and give government subsidies to “protect” their culture from the influence of foreign cultures.

In Paris (where else?), the world body’s cultural arm, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, passed on Thursday the “Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.” 148 countries supported the French- and Canadian-led measure, with only America and Israel voting against and Australia, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Liberia abstaining. The accord now needs to be ratified by 30 member states to come into force. Countries could then cite it at trade talks and demand exemptions. Other countries aren’t mandated to accept any exemptions but they have to hear the case. It’s likely to lead to clashes at the World Trade Organization’s December meeting.

It’s another example where America and Israel are on the right side of an issue and the New York Times is on the wrong side. The Times reported the news under the classic headline “Unesco Adopts New Plan Against Cultural Invasion,” over a news story that suggested the headline was meant without irony “Given the choice of defending Hollywood’s interests or joining an international consensus, the United States stood almost alone at Unesco Thursday in opposing a new convention on cultural diversity designed to combat the homogenizing effect of cultural globalization,” the Times wrote, saying, again apparently without irony, that the treaty “was hailed as an important step toward protecting threatened cultures, particularly in developing countries.”

The protectionists – oops, cultural diversity defenders – argue that cultural goods and services are different from others and deserve to be treated differently under free trade agreements. If they aren’t protected these cultures would be overwhelmed by other more powerful cultures (read: American) and would die. In plain English: Countries can introduce barriers to limit the access of American movies, newspapers, music, and the like, to their populations.

The desire of countries to protect their cultural heritage is understandable and admirable. But what the protectionists don’t realize is that it is free trade that has allowed their civilizations to exchange ideas and flourish. Trade meant Plato wasn’t restricted to Greece, Algebra to the Middle East, and the Internet to America. Free trade is why Brazilian music, French wine, and African costumes can all be found in downtown Brooklyn. Protectionism is the opposite of “diversity”; it restricts choices. If the French wish to protect the language of Moliere, the way to do so is not by restricting other languages coming into France, but by making French more accessible and appealing to people across the globe.

Free trade has also been one of the greatest mediums of freedom. Learning from other cultures taught people that slavery is unacceptable, that women are not second-class citizens, and that no man has a right to oppress and rule others. This measure gives a green light to the world’s monarchs, theocrats, and dictators to ban access to materials speaking of freedom and rights in the name of protecting their culture.

Ronald Reagan pulled America out of UNESCO in 1984 largely because of corruption and anti-American prejudice. President Bush put America back in two years ago on the assumption it had reformed itself. It clearly hasn’t and the joke is on America, whose taxpayers pay 22% ($134 million) of UNESCO’s $610 million budget. If UNESCO wants to march in the opposite direction to progress there seems little reason for America’s taxpayers to pay for that journey.