Mr. Göran Hansson, UNPO Vice Chairman, represented the UNPO at the Conference.
Hereunder follows an excerpt of Mr. Hansson’s speech.

Dear participants,

I am sometimes asked: what does Scania – the southernmost region in Sweden - have in common with the Batwa nation in Central Africa, the Tibetans in Tibet and the Molluccans in the South Molluccas? After all, we are all members of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation – the UNPO - in The Hague. My answer is: we have nothing in common – and yet we have everything in common.

We have nothing in common because we speak different languages; we have different customs, traditions, history and culture. We dress differently. We even look different.

But we have everything in common because we share the same concern: a human concern. We all see our languages and cultures diminish before our eyes. Neither one of us have sufficient political control of our everyday life and affairs. Our daily political decisions are taken in the state capital, sometimes a long distance away. This is a concern we – the Scanians - share with all small nations and peoples of the world.

In fact, the small nations and peoples do not exist in the eyes of the international community – except as in some cases as odd elements in the state oriented global society. These odd elements are sometimes referred to as “indigenous people”. Or, to use a nations state vocabulary – “Indigenous Populations”. “Indigenous people” – in their odd costumes – are permitted to argue in more or less toothless organisations. The UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations, or – as in the case in Sweden – in the so-called “Sami Parliament”. And that is as far as the state oriented global society is prepared to go. The wishes and desires of the small nations and peoples can be disregarded – and they always are.

I am speaking here as a representative of the only organisation, which is recognising unrepresented nations and peoples right to regional self-rule or other forms of self-determination. The UNPO is representing 52 nations and peoples all over the world, which in turn represent some 150 million people.

One of the common concerns among the members of the UNPO is the lack of respect state governments are showing for the small cultures and languages. It appears that the great mistake some – if not most – state governments have made is to attempt to monopolise cultural identity. This policy of moulding a state into a “nation” at the small peoples and nations expense may prove to be an impossible task and the cause of many of today’s intra-state conflicts.

The anxiety UNPO members experience when they see their languages disappear is real and should be taken more seriously by the world community. There are 6 to 10 thousand languages in the world today. Half of these languages are not likely to see the end of this century if the present cultural policies are allowed to continue. When a language is dying, a human culture is likely to die with it. When a human culture is gone, a people’s experience, knowledge and its unique way of viewing the world may also be gone: forever.

There are those who think that languages are only a way to communicate between individuals – as has been a common conception since the construction of the Tower of Babylon. The reduction of the world’s languages is therefore a good thing for these individuals - the fewer the better, the more individuals will be able to communicate with one another.

But there are also those – on the other hand - who are of the opinion that there are more to languages than just communication. Those who believe that into a any language, small or large, is interwoven – like a DNA code – a collective experience developed by a group of people at a particular place during a long period of cultural evolution. That a language carries self-identification, pride and self-respect – much needed commodities in today’s world. The time has therefore come to make a choice between these two standpoints. It is the firm opinion of the UNPO – shared by many of the major linguistic and cultural organisations and institutions in Europe – is that the great variety of cultures and languages carries a value in itself and thus should be protected.

Perhaps it is time to seriously question the future of the nation state as the strong and universally prevailing institution in sole control of international and internal affairs. The fact of the matter is that the nation state over the years has not proven itself to be a very successful institution.

The modern nation state has many wars and conflicts on its conscience. And many failed social experiments have had the nation state leaderships as conductors holding the baton, causing suffering and hardships among its populations. And the state system has, with an almost frightening regularity, produced despotic leaders sometimes holding both its own populations and the world at stranglehold.

We are now facing an acute problem – how to solve the problems with Afghanistan. A group of people is presently meeting in Bonn, Germany trying to find a replacement for the failed government there. The solution appears to be that a new government will be appointed – not by the people in Afghanistan but by the international community. The same old construction – a central government within the same rigid state borders.

But who is representing the various nations and peoples of Afghanistan in Bonn, making sure that their interests are being considered in the negotiations? To make sure that adequate concern is being taken to ensure that cultural and linguistic diversity will prevail also in Afghanistan, also in the future. Probably nobody.

The UNPO is one of the few global organisations, which allows nations and peoples a voice. Many other governments and international organisation agree that the UNPO has a great future potential and could play an important role in future world affairs. We are convinced that the UNPO could help solving present and future conflicts in a peaceful and democratic way.

Finally, I like to inform you that both the UNPO and its members are following closely the developments within the European Union, within the framework of what is often referred to as “The Regions of Europe”. That is, the decentralisation process where the power of the Nation State is – in an orderly manner - diminished in favour of a greater European vision and common goals and regional democratic self- government, closer to the people. Hoping that, if successful, the European Union and the “Regions of Europe” concept could serve as a model for the rest of the world.

The small nations and peoples need a break. Regional self-rule may be part of the answer. I hope – both as an elected representative of the UNPO and a Scanian – that decentralisation and devolution a la The European Union may prove to be the tool to prevent further global destruction of languages and cultures.

But all global changes start at home. Each state government should carefully review its policies towards the regional cultures and languages within their own borders. It may be necessary, in many cases, for governments to make a 180-degree turn and once and for all abolish the myth of “one state, one nation, one history, one culture and one language”.

Thank you.