CHAIRMAN S CLOSING REMARKS PROFESSOR A. HADDOW

Transcription

1 Conflict in Socieq Anthony de Reuck 8. Julie Knight Copyright Ciba Foundation Symposium CHAIRMAN S CLOSING REMARKS PROFESSOR A. HADDOW Unquestionably we have all learned a great deal from this meeting. It has been a great stimulus to thought and analysis, particularly because we have approached the subject of conflict from such different points of view. It is evident that we still have a certain amount of disagreement on various aspects, but I am pleased by that disagreement because I think it is true, and could be far more fertile than the rather banal, trite and untrue protestations of entire and total agreement too often produced by many politicians. My own main interest is in international systems. We know that the international system of the present time is in a deplorable state. What are we to do about it? What can be done about it? For many years I have been closely associated with the Parliamentary Association for World Government and the Parliamentary Group for World Government, and now with the newly-formed British Association for World Government. We have spoken of world peace through world law. I confess I have never quite understood how this was to come about. One always had the practical difficulty of envisaging a system of enforcement without any form of coercion. I think the term World Government is inherently unfortunate. The late Lord Beveridge shared this view : most men were unhappy with one government, and would not be enthusiastic at the prospect of having two! On the other hand, I myself do not entirely agree with Dr. Burton-some world authority is needed. He himself mentioned the relative growth in the status and influence of the United Nations General Assembly, relative to the Security Council. We must interest ourselves in revising the Charter. Is it not possible to see the Assembly ultimately transformed into an elected World 44 I

2 PROFESSOR A. HADIIOW Parliament for the discussion of the issues of war and peace and population and human betterment on a world scale? This can all be done without damaging characteristic national qualities at their best. Indeed, I believe it would encourage and enhance them. I am intensely devoted to America and the American cause, but if, for example, as Professor Rapoport said, the whole planet were to be Americanized, this could be world tragedy. We must evolve a world system which retains the best of existing diversity, but which diminishes mere narrow nationalism. I was much impressed by Professor Roling s account of the insensible kind of influence for good which exists even in the absence of a truly organized system of international law, and I myself believe that if there is no immediate disaster, accidental or otherwise, a great deal can be done insensibly, without enforcement, through co-operation, for example in science and medicine. There is already evidence in the creation of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which had a marked influence on the governments of the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. and also of the United Kingdom. It might be said that our ultimate influence will be inconsiderable if we have no power. On the contrary, I believe that our influence will be greater if we have no power to enforce a decision, Professor Rapoport spoke of the disregard of trust in the question of strategic policy. The realm of trust, I believe, is the one that really matters. My great friend Philip Noel-Baker has a noble mission, in the construction of a universally acceptable disarmament treaty. But if trust is not present the treaty will not be respected. If trust is present, no treaty will be required, Professor Roling will remember the Moscow Pugwash Conference in I had certain impressions there which have a bearing on our work at this meeting. Very powerful teams attended that conference, especially from the United States and the Soviet Union, The Russians had done no homework, but simply reiterated the desire for general and complete disarmament. The American team had done an immensely skilled and extremely detailed study, but so much so that they had almost lost sight of the objective. In 442

3 CLOSING REMARKS the general problem of conflict, problems must be thought out in detail and solved, but we must avoid the danger of becoming so immersed in academic studies that we miss the essence. During the Pugwash Conference in Moscow came a tour de force by Peter Kapitza which nobody there could possibly forget. Kapitza gave an impromptu account of the virtues of capitalism and communism, comparing them with a modern automobile on the one hand, and with the horse buggy on the other, but without + I Menace I / Tunnel effect \ Zero Penetrance + Fig. I. The Kapitza curve. Maxi mu rn saying which was which. But he pointed out that in certain circumstances even today the horse buggy could be extremely useful and effective, and the modern automobile not at all : both had their advantages. Then he described what came to be called the Kapitza curve. He believed in the need for understanding and trust, and thought this could only be brought about by the penetration of peoples. This, of course, has increased immensely since the war, especially in the field of science. The Kapitza curve is as follows (Fig. I). The horizontal axis indicates the increasing extent of penetrance, contact or understanding, The vertical axis is the 443

4 PROFESSOR A. HADDOW extent of menace, which can be measured as armament. Thus, in the case of the Martians and the Americans there is very little danger at the moment because of mutual ignorance, so that the risk or menace is zero. Kapitza was confident that when peoples come to know one another and respect one another penetrance will be totally effective so that again there will be no hazard. But between these two extremes there are degrees of menace, and he wished to know where we now are on this hump, and how we can get over it. He thought there might be a tunnel effect, and that science could exert a tunnel action, getting us to the other side without the necessity of going over the top. We have agreed that we cannot eliminate conflict. Our task, as Professor Rapoport has said, is to make war unthinkable. It is only an instant, on the scale of history, since England and France were at war, yet we cannot think of this now. Although myself an optimist, I believe we do little service if we minimize the dangers. The greatest danger is perhaps that of complacency. I will give two examples only. William Randal Cremer was closely concerned in the foundation of the International Arbitration League of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and of the Hague Tribunal, in which last he was greatly helped by the munificence of Andrew Carnegie. In 1903 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and in his Nobel Address, delivered at Christiania on 15th January, 1905, was supremely confident that all difficulties were over on the international scene. He admitted a certain setback from the Boer War, but otherwise his address was full of optimism, It is a most pathetic document which I implore you to read. May I quote from its conclusion : 6 6 Gentlemen, there is still a great work before us. The Advocates of Peace are, however, no longer regarded as idle dreamers, and I trust that I have convinced you that our cause has, especially of late, made wonderful progress, and that we are nearing the goal of our hopes. The World has passed through a long night of tribulation and suffering, millions of our fellow creatures have 444

5 CLOSING REMARKS been sacrificed to the demon of War: their blood has saturated every plain and dyed every ocean. But courage, friends, courage! The darkness is ending, a new day is dawning, and the future is ours.... Cremer died in 1908, six years before the outbreak of the Great War. The other case arose at the time of the Russell-Einstein Declaration in I 955-an annus mirabilis. This was also the year of the first Geneva Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, partly an outcome of scientific protest. Russell was absolutely confident that all was permanently settled. We are wiser now. 44 5