Liechtenstein, 1999

This is the sixth time that I have had the

honour to address the General Assembly, and it is a great

pleasure for me to be back here in this body.

I would, at the outset, like to congratulate Mr.

Gurirab warmly on his election to the presidency of the

General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session. Both

Liechtenstein and Namibia figure among the younger

Members of this Organization, since both our countries

were admitted to the United Nations in 1990. The

32

President can count on Liechtenstein's support as he guides

the Assembly to fruitful outcomes.

I would also like to extend our warm welcome to the

Kingdom of Tonga, the Republic of Kiribati and the

Republic of Nauru.

The general debate is an important opportunity for all

of us to take stock, to comment on the state of the

Organization, to voice our concerns and, if necessary,

dissatisfaction and, most important, to offer constructive

thoughts and ideas for the future.

At the time when Liechtenstein became a Member of

the United Nations, nine years ago, the cold war had just

come to an end, and we tried to identify the challenges and

opportunities created by the new situation. The hopes and

expectations were high, the concerns and problems

manifold. It was clear to many of us that our Organization

was not fully equipped to face the upcoming challenges,

and, indeed, mistakes have happened along the way.

Today, we can say that the somewhat perverse order

of the cold war has been replaced by the era of

globalization. Some of us welcome this new era, some of

us fear it. However different our opinions, there can and

should be one common denominator: that we acknowledge

the arrival of this new era and that we join our forces to

face its challenges.

Globalization has two faces: it offers a potential, from

which — if properly explored — mankind as a whole can

benefit. It also contains risks, especially for those who are

already in a perilous position.

In order to be able to face these two enormous tasks

efficiently, we have to work together, because that is the

only way for us to succeed. The United Nations is the sole

forum that is of truly global range, and thus it offers the

only opportunity for us to address these issues — assuming

we are equipped with the right tools.

The past years have been characterized by important

and far-reaching reform efforts. The challenges of

globalization make further measures necessary, such as the

enhanced inclusion, participation and accountability of non-

State actors. In a globalized world, such actors play

increasingly influential roles, both positive and negative.

Persons and organizations that constitute significant

economic forces have to be involved in our considerations

and decision-making processes. Actors such as terrorists

and parties to internal armed conflicts have to be held

accountable for their actions and for the consequences

thereof.

The public at large often mistakenly equates the

United Nations with the work of only the Security

Council. This is factually wrong, and we should use every

opportunity to inform people worldwide about the wide

range of activities carried out by our Organization and its

specialized agencies. But we also have to bear in mind

the immense importance of the work of the Council and

must have a certain appreciation of why the public

focuses only on the Council's work, erroneous as this

approach may be. It is simply a fact that the credibility of

the United Nations depends to a very large extent on the

credibility of the work of the Security Council. This

credibility has suffered serious blows in the recent past,

and we cannot afford to ignore the root causes of the

problem.

We have to address the existing problems and to

design ways and means to avoid further, perhaps

irreversible, damage. Strict observance of the key

provisions of the Charter is one essential element in this

respect, and reform of the Security Council is another.

For a long time we have talked about all aspects of such

a reform, including the composition of the Council. The

moment has come for us to recognize that the question of

the veto is at the core of every credible and sustainable

Security Council reform.

My country has long expressed concern about the

situation in Kosovo and has asked for preventive efforts

in order to avoid an escalation of this situation. In

solidarity with the victims and wanting to take some

responsibility for them, Liechtenstein has given temporary

shelter to a large number of Kosovar refugees, has

participated in the provision of humanitarian assistance,

in particular through the relevant United Nations agencies,

and has expressed full support to the United Nations

Mission in Kosovo and to the ongoing efforts of

reconstruction.

At the same time, we also have questions, and we

notice that others do too. How can we reconcile the role

given to the Security Council under the Charter of the

United Nations with a “humanitarian intervention” not

mandated by the Council? What does this mean for the

future of the Security Council and of the Organization as

a whole? Are regional organizations to assume a leading

role that goes beyond what is contained in Chapter VIII

of the Charter? It will be important to discuss these

33

questions, though finding satisfactory answers is certainly

difficult.

To our mind, Kosovo has made it very clear once

more that the prevention of conflicts must be the key

concept in conflict-resolution as well as in other areas.

Preventive measures are the best means of saving lives and

resources of every kind, and they can be carried out quickly

and with discretion. Prevention does not make big news

headlines, but it reduces the number of headlines on

disasters, of which we continue to see just too many. The

potential of prevention is enormous, but its application so

far is too modest and far too limited.

We know that there is still reluctance and hesitation,

but we feel a sense of urgency, a pressing need to enhance

preventive activities and to replace a classical concept of

sovereignty — a concept that is outdated in many aspects

— with a new one which enables us to tackle situations of

potential and actual crisis with determination and efficiency.

We thus welcome the report of the Secretary-General on

the work of the Organization and his very inspiring and

timely remarks on a “culture of prevention”. We are

convinced that this is the right way for the international

community to go.

Kosovo has been and somewhat sadly remains a prime

example of the need for prevention. Liechtenstein has for

several years now promoted ideas and suggestions on a

preventive approach with regard to problems arising from

the application of the right of self-determination. The

international community remains stuck in a situation in

which the exercise of the right of self-determination —

which is the prerequisite for the enjoyment of all human

rights — is denied because it is misunderstood as a claim

to independence and statehood. We all have known for very

long, since the adoption by the General Assembly of the

Friendly Relations Declaration in 1970, that this is not

correct. Self-determination can mean many other things, if

exercised in a flexible manner and based on a dialogue

between the parties concerned. It does not have to lead to

the break-up of States; it should rather facilitate the

peaceful coexistence of States and communities which are

provided a degree of self-administration or self-governance

as an expression of their right of self-determination.

It is time to free ourselves from biased and obsolete

thinking and to recognize that the effective application and

exercise of the right of self-determination is the basis for

preventing violent disintegration of States as well as

internal armed conflicts with all their gruesome aspects and

endless human suffering.