THE QUESTION OF PEACE IN THE POLITICS OF EUROPE

Speech delivered at a luncheon in Helsinki given by the Association of Political Editors, 28 December 1967

Press men may have wondered in the last few years why I have spoken so frequently of peace and testified as to the necessity of work for peace. I fear war wherever in the world it may break out, for the relations between peoples are such today that an armed conflict far from us can be a threat to our own peace through unfortunate coincidences.

It has been said that the military means of annihilation are so terrible at present that a direct war between two super powers is not possible, since it would mean suicide for both parties. It is to be hoped that the optimism based on this dreadful state of affairs is valid. But the real possibility of nuclear war was taken into consideration during the Cuban crisis.

I am of the opinion that a war cannot arise in Europe in which the opposing parties are a NATO country and a country belonging to the Warsaw Pact, for mutual solidarity would soon turn such a military conflict, planned on a limited scale, into a general war. This, too, I regard as very improbable at the present moment. But it is best not to take an oath on the future of Europe. As the lumberjack from the North said: `I can swear, but I won`t bet.`

I am thinking here chiefly of West Germany. The amazing growth of the NPD^1 is causing concern not only outside West Germany but also in the democratic circles of West Germany. I have heard that some West German leaders no longer use the term Neo-Nazism, but Nazism, when speaking of the NPD. And if the NPD really does grow into an influential force in the Federal Republic of Germany, the European status quo will be menaced.

1 The right-wing National Democratic Party.

It is bewildering that in the same period when the achievements of science and technology are establishing the prerequisites for raising the material prosperity of the world, these same achievements have given rise to the possibility of the self-destruction of mankind. Nuclear arms can paralyse the entire industrialized world in the blink of an eyelid, destroying an essential part of its achievements. The reality of this threat is emphasized by the fact that when international conflicts are aggravated, they often lead to the use of weapons and thus create a situation in which reference to nuclear arms might also be considered in the last resort. It must be stated, furthermore, that the world as a whole is in a state of ferment.

The contrast between the peoples of the industrialized world and the peoples of the developing countries, living in misery and constituting the majority of mankind, will lead to numerous conflicts in the course of the developmental phase of integration and modernization that is now in progress throughout the world, conflicts which may lead us to the brink of destruction.

I read a few days ago that $130,000 million were spent on preparations for war in the world in 1964, $ 37,000 million on public health and nursing care, $ 7,000 million on aid to developing countries. As the expenditure on preparations for war and on war has increased sharply since then, the ratios have changed appreciably to the detriment of peaceful aims. Everyone can draw his own conclusions.

The history of mankind up to the present does not hold out great promise for the future, but at least we now have an awareness of the dangers facing us and a chance of choosing. If we adopt a new attitude of deliberation, conciliation, cooperation and tolerance, in short rationality, instead of the emotional, uncompromising, egocentric and intolerant attitude that has previously prevailed, we shall have some chance of avoiding a catastrophe. This calls for tenacious, unflagging, long-term work, for international problems cannot be solved overnight. In addition to governments, the success of this work depends on the active interest and participation of all peoples.

Work for peace is actually one form of this participation. There was an aversion to it in Finland before the war since it was commonly thought of as an unpatriotic activity. But it has met with adverse feeling in our country since the war as well. It has been seen primarily as a tool of international Communism. This reproach can be removed from the peace movement, in my opinion, if broader and broader strata of citizens participate in the work, and give it the same guise of neutrality as our foreign policy has. I have said in the past that participation in the peace movement is the way that the ordinary citizen can oppose war, and I have not had any reason to change my mind.

Bishop Paavali said in a recent speech that work for peace is not the same thing as pacifism. The same view is surely embraced by the Finnish officers who have been present at meetings aimed at expounding or promoting work for peace.

We have been able to enjoy a state of peace for over 22 years. The period of peace from spring 1918 to early autumn 1939 was not as long. It is futile to indulge in `ifs`, but if we had known about war what we now know, we would have had cause to give more room and opportunity to patriotic work for peace during our first period of peace. We must anyway do so during our present period of peace. I close with the words of the Norwegian poet Nordahl Grieg, who was shot down over Berlin during World War II: `Peace is not something that is given once-for-all. To possess it, one must fight for it all the time. Peace is the most restless creature in the world.`