Statement by
 His Serene Highness Prince Hans-Adam II
 Reigning Prince of the Principality of Liechtenstein

Mr. Secretary-General
Mr. President,
Your Eminence,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

In his address to the Fiftieth General Assembly, His Holiness Pope John Paul II referred to the quest for freedom in the second half of the twentieth century. His Holiness pointed out that this quest engaged not only individuals but nations as well and that terrible crimes were committed in the name of lethal doctrines which taught the "inferiority" of some nations and cultures. I wholeheartedly subscribe to His Holiness' conviction that "the full recognition of the rights of peoples and nations has presented itself repeatedly to the conscience of humanity". His Holiness mentioned that "the human condition finds itself between two poles - universality and particularity". Between these two poles there is "an inevitable tension, but singularly fruitful if they are lived in a calm and balanced way".

To find this balance between the particular, the individual on one side and the universal, the community, the nation, the State on the other side probably challenged humanity from its beginning onward. in the following, I will try to explain why I am convinced that religion, the rule of law and democracy are necessary to find and to keep this balance between the individual and the community, the particular and the universal.

As far as we know religion has been a companion of mankind since the beginning of human civilization. Religion in its different forms and intelligence are probably two key factors which distinguish us from animals. They have influenced in a decisive way the evolution of human communities and society in general.

Intelligence was a valuable tool for the first humans to overcome the limits of their environment, of their instincts and to a certain degree also of their genetics. Humans learned the use of fire, to live in climates they were not adapted to , they developed instruments to catch and kill animals which were faster and stronger, built boats to fish and to travel on the sea. Human communities usually are not ruled by instincts but by law, laws developed through human intelligence and, as many religions believe, perhaps sometime given to humanity by God.

Intelligence without the boundaries of religion and morality can become a dangerous weapon. An intelligent human can recognize that his life on this planet is short, that even the best laws will not bring perfect justice to human society. If one does not believe in religion and the life after death a ruthless pursuit of one's own interest becomes the best strategy for a short life. You only have to be intelligent enough not to be caught breaking the law or even better have enough power to make your own laws and be your own judge.

One can easily understand that if such a strategy is the prevailing behavior in a family, in a community or in a State, sooner or later the family breaks apart, the community disappears and the State is destroyed. Therefore, it is not surprising that religion played such a vital role throughout human history. With religion the chances of survival of a family, a community or a State improve, without religion the chances are reduced. States who tried to suppress and to destroy religion in the end only succeeded in destroying the rule of law and the foundations they were built on.

Usually, States supported religion because they recognized the importance of religion for their own survival but unfortunately, States also tried to control and sometimes even to create religion. Political leaders can gain absolute power not only by writing their own laws and being their own judges, but also by creating their own religion, ideology or doctrine. This policy has damaged consequences not only for the State but also for religion.

Religious wars at the end of the Middle Ages, the extensive use of religion for political purposes and the rapid accumulation of scientific knowledge in Europe two hundred years ago were the breeding ground for the replacement of religion through different kinds of ideology or doctrine. People started to believe that they can create heaven here on earth. The State or the party would replace God and reward those people who deserve it and punish the others.

The twentieth century has shown the failure of this approach. Probably many more people have been killed this century, alone through ideological wars and persecution than over many centuries of religious wars and persecution.

What is to be done so that humanity breaks out of his violent circle of ideological and perhaps again religious wars? The freedom of religion, the rule of law and democracy have to become the foundations of human society if mankind wants to live in peace and prosperity. The State or the party can no longer play God. Religious beliefs will support the rule of law much more efficiently and over a longer period of time than some nationalistic or racist ideologies. The conviction has to spread that the States are created by people and have to serve the people and not the other way around. This can only be realized by democracy. The people have to decide in the end what they want.

In my opinion democracy is the only way how a modern State can find its legitimation. A religious legitimation of the Sate violates the principal of the freedom of religion, makes religion again an instrument of the State and brings back religious wars and persecutions. The horrors of ideological legitimation can be studied in our century, and I am afraid will be with us also at the beginning of the next century.

The vast majority of the Member States of the Untied Nations see democracy today as their guiding principal. Unfortunately, in many States only lip service is paid to this principle and even in countries with a long democratic tradition the democratic principle is applied in a rather restrictive way. May I mention one restriction which I find quiet dangerous if one looks into the future. Democracy also means that right to self-determination, and the right of the people to self-determination stands prominently in the UN-Charter as well as in other international documents, but reality looks somewhat different.

In the UN-Charter the right of self-determination is respected in such a way that the integrity and sovereignty of existing States must be respected. Many States interpret this to mean that only during the decolonization process the right of self-determination enjoys precedence over the sanctity of borders. Even States with a long democratic tradition have difficulties to accept the idea that their population has the right to put the existing borders in question. One of the arguments is that earlier generations have already made the choice to belong to this State or this nation and that the following generations are therefore bound by this decision.

To put such restrictions on democracy is in my opinion problematic for several reasons:

1. With few exceptions present borders have not been established in a democratic process.
2. Every democracy accepts the idea that constitutions and laws can be changed in a democratic process.
3. In a democracy the majority decides. History shows that even in well established democracies the majority can suppress a minority. If there is not a clearly defined right of self-determination for a minority the rule of law and with it democracy can be the first victims. As we have seen this can easily lead to collapse of the State either through civil war or some other mechanism.

Restrictions on democracy threaten not only democracy itself but the State which seeks its legitimation in democracy. Restrictions on democracy cannot be the answer but rather the extension of democracy and self-determination down to the smallest community. Some people believe that such an extension of democracy will threaten the political stability of the modern State. I think the opposite will happen.

As an example I would like to mention the freedom of religion. Some people believe that the freedom of religion and the separation of the State and religion destroys religion. The opposite seems to be true. Contrary to the policies followed in Europe on this matter over the last two hundred years the United States declared in its Constitution the freedom of religion and a clear separation of religion and state. According to the different surveys, religion in the United States is far stronger than in any of the European States. This rather unusual strength of religion in a modern industrial society is perhaps also one of the reasons they the American Constitution has survived, whereas an impressive number of democratic constitutions which have been written in the past two hundred years have disappeared. Religion, the rule of law and democracy might be much more dependent on each other than most people believe.

To bring democracy down to the small community together with the rule of law and the freedom of religion will strengthen not weaken the State. States which have been restrained in their development through centralization and bureaucracy can be revitalized. To realize self-determination you do not need independence; internal self-determination or autonomy can be sufficient and in most cases probably the more efficient solution. In a world where globalization in the economy, in communication and in many other areas is progressing rapidly a small community realizes much sooner than a larger one that not independence but interdependence is the rule of the game. May I again quote His Holiness: "There can be historical circumstances in which aggregations different from single State sovereignty can even prove advisable, not only on condition that this takes place in a climate of true freedom, guaranteed by the exercise of the self-determination of the peoples concerned".

His Holiness also mentioned in his address to the General Assembly that the universal declaration of human rights adopted in 1948 spoke eloquently of the rights of persons but no similar international agreement has yet adequately addressed the rights of nations and if I may add communities.

It is precisely against this background that I focused in my address to the 46th session of the General Assembly on the problems which arise for the international community, where peaceful coexistence between different groups within States seems impossible to achieve or maintain.

At the 48th session of the General Assembly, Liechtenstein introduced an initiative on the "Effective realization of the right of self-determination through autonomy". As we see it, the principal of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and other important international legal instruments, still has unexplored potential which offers the possibility that progress might be made in the directions we seek; and the adoption of varying degrees of self-determination offers a particularly helpful practical device which could be developed within the broad scope of that principal.

This all led us to suggest that the international community should explore the possibility of communities having various appropriate levels of self-administration. This concept is very flexible, and can be used constructively so as to cover different aspects of self-determination, and thereby to tailor the degree of self-expression enjoyed by communities to whatever is appropriate in their particular circumstances. We envisage some minimal mechanisms and procedures being made available to help States and communities in their search for suitable models of self-administration which they might find appropriate to their needs. Independence is not the primary object of our initiative: we are looking much more at the forms of what may be styled 'internal self-determination' than at processes designed to lead to the attainment of independence.

After a debate on the Liechtenstein initiative, it was decided that the General Assembly would consider the matter further at a later state. Before seeking to bring forward the subject again for debate, it seems to us more likely to be constructive and fruitful to pursue it further within an academic, rather than a political framework. As one element of Liechtenstein's contribution to commemoration of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations in 1995, I gave a grant to Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs to establish a research program on self-determination. The choice of that School is particularly appropriate, given President Wilson's contribution in this area. The program is being conducted under the auspices of the Woodrow Wilson School's Center of International Studies.

Two conferences took place in Princeton within the framework of this program, the first in March 1995, and the second in June. They were open for participation to all Member States of the United Nations.

The conferences took the form of discussions based upon papers and commentaries written by selected individuals, of many differing nationalities and intellectual backgrounds but with one thing in common: that they were all outstanding experts in their various fields (international law, international relations and relevant social and cultural areas). the whole project was conducted on the basis of complete intellectual and academic freedom, so that the papers written by various contributors and commentators were the sole responsibility of their authors, and were in no way influenced by the research program. The result of these conferences will be shortly published in a book.

The Liechtenstein research program at Princeton University is a long-term project. The two conferences and the papers prepared for them were a first phase. We shall continue the project by possibly analyzing one particular country situation during the second phase.

I am therefore deeply grateful to the Holy Father that he emphasized, in his address to the General Assembly, that the "Rights of Nations" need to be adequately addressed by the international community since their exercise, "balanced by the acknowledgment and the practice of duties, promotes a fruitful "exchange of gifts", which strengthens the unity of all mankind".