The Nobel Peace Prize 1982
Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles
Presentation Speech delivered by Mr. Egil
Aarvik, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, on the occasion of
the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1982, Oslo, December
10, 1982.
Translation
Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Your
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:
People occasionally ask whether the task of nominating Peace
Prize winners may not prove a difficult one.
It is certainly not difficult to understand the reasoning
prompting this sort of question. Naturally a Peace Prize
committee, too, is bound to feel a sense of affliction at the
setbacks suffered by the cause of peace. Great is our
disappointment every time national boundaries are violated, and
naked force of arms unleashed. One knows the feeling of despair
at the news that innocent people are being killed and old enmity
rekindled.
The world in which we live is not at peace. Tensions and
unresolved disputes are dominant features of our age. Despite
disarmament conferences and other verbal endeavours to promote
peace, the armaments race continues. Military budgets merely
mount up, and have today reached a level of close to 65 billion
dollars annually. Nuclear armaments are the cause of deepest
concern. With these weapons the killing power of the super powers
appears to have reached its maximum potential - the extermination
of the human race. There are, in short, ample grounds for
pessimism in our time.
But, as one of this year's laureates has declared: "Giving up is
not human!" And it is, in fact, from the ranks of people imbued
precisely with such ideas that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has
this year made its choice.
Alva Myrdal and Alfonso García Robles have, in the opinion
of the Committee, proved outstanding candidates for two reasons.
In the first place owing to their magnificent work in the
disarmament negotiations of the United Nations, where they have both played
crucial roles and won international recognition; and secondly
because, too, they have made such a notable contribution to the
task of informing world opinion on the problems of armaments and
of arousing the acceptance by the general public of their joint
responsibility for the train of events.
In awarding Nobel's Peace Prize to these two, the Committee
wishes to focus attention on what - despite the many gloomy
prospects - nevertheless constitutes a bright spot. There are
people who are not satisfied merely to draw attention to alarming
trends, but who also devote their energy and their ability to
turning the tide. Pessimism and anxiety for the future have
failed to unnerve a few hardy souls, who are endeavouring to
convey the message that the fate of mankind has by no means been
finally sealed, and that the nuclear holocaust is not the only
possible outcome of the conflicts and disputes we face.
The climate of public opinion for peace and disarmament initiated
in the western world is on the march, and is now thrusting its
way across many national boundaries. The idea of calling a halt
to the nuclear armaments race is no longer quite so impossible.
Leading politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have grasped
its sense of deep commitment, and are giving it their support. It
may well be a sign of the times that during the recent elections
to Congress and the Senate in the USA there was a substantial
majority in a number of states in favour of freezing nuclear
armaments at their present level.
The leaders of public opinions for peace and disarmament in the
West know to their chagrin what a poor hearing they command in
the East. But even here, too, they are not without their allies,
of which maybe the most important is the common fear of total
extermination in a nuclear war, a fear which we may assume is
felt just as forcibly over there as in our part of the world.
After all, overriding all conflicting interests there exists a
common interest in survival.
Nevertheless, under no circumstances would it be human to give
up. And this is precisely the keynote of the message we have
received from this year's Peace Prize winners.
Alva Myrdal's commitment to the service of disarmament has long
since established her international reputation. The many awards
and other marks of high honour she has received testify to her
standing in the international community.
Her commitment, moreover, reveals a tremendous span, both in
terms of time and spheres of interest. As far back as the 1930s
she played a prominent part in developing the modern Swedish
welfare state. She was a staunch champion of women's liberation
and equal rights. She has proved a brilliant diplomat, and was
the first woman to be appointed head of a department in the
United Nations.
On an occasion like this it is only right and proper that a
Norwegian Nobel Committee should recall her fearless and
notable work on behalf of Norway during the Second World War. For
this she was deservedly awarded His Majesty King Haakon VII's
Freedom Cross.
Alva Myrdal belongs to the world community: but she is
ideologically firmly rooted in Nordic constitutional principles
and in our democratic ideals. These were the ideals that
motivated her when she acted as head of delegation during the
disarmament negotiations in Geneva. Nor is that all: in other UN
contexts, too, she has been a staunch spokesman of peace and
disarmament.
As a researcher and disarmament expert, with a wide knowledge of
the problems of world politics, she has commanded attention in
the international forum, and not least in her literary work where
her influence has been profound.
It is no doubt typical of great personalities that it is easy
both to agree and disagree with them. Alva Myrdal is hardly an
exception to this rule: but on one point all will agree - her
name has become a rallying point for men and women who still
cling to the belief that in the last resort, mind is bound to
triumph over matter.
Today, in her eighty-first year, she can look back on a life
which must of necessity have been not only rich but also
dramatic. It must have alternated between hope and
disappointment, and almost certainly, too, between encouragement
and discouragement.
So much the greater on such occasions the joy of witnessing the
fruits of one's labour, heralding the consummation of the dream
conceived in the finest moment of life. In this connection it
might be fitting to recall Bjornstjerne Bjornson's words
All that your hopes have illumined,
all that your fears have bedewed - now grows apace.
For obvious reasons Alfonso García
Robles is less well known in the Nordic countries. But, as we all
know, a considerable part of the world is situated outside the
North. And in international disarmament work García Robles
bears a name that is truly illustrious. He was the driving force
behind the agreement, signed in Mexico City in 1967, that
declared Latin America a denuclearised zone. And in view of the
fact that the wording of this treaty is so markedly the work of
Garcia Robles, it gives us at the same time a very fair
description of the man and his way of thinking.
The outstanding feature of this agreement - the first of its kind
in the world - is a realistic view of the destructive power
inherent in nuclear arms. The starting point for the agreement
that was reached is a clear recognition that nuclear arms are in
essence not defensive weapons, but weapons of self-destruction.
They are - to quote the words of the agreement - an attack on the
integrity of the human race, and could in the final resort even
render the world uninhabitable.
It has rightly been maintained that the first essential condition
required for the solution of political problems is the moral
courage to look these problems in the face. Frequently this is
precisely what is lacking, and this is maybe particularly
applicable to the problem of nuclear arms. It is such a
temptation to shut one's eyes. It is as though the process of
comprehension were obstructed. We are not in a position to pursue
our own reasoning to its logical conclusion. At some point or
other we recoil, lacking the courage to know what we actually
know. The truth concerning the situation that has been created by
modern nuclear weapons is so horrifying that in a way it numbs
our ability to comprehend it.
The American social economist and author Professor John Kenneth
Galbraith has expressed this in the following words:
"The truth that men seek there to evade is that this small planet cannot survive a nuclear exchange... Asked if we want life for our children and grandchildren, we affirm that we do. Asked about nuclear war, the greatest threat to that life, we regularly dismiss it from mind. Man has learned to live with the thought of his own mortality. And he now has accommodated to the thought that all may die, that his children and grandchildren will not exist. It's a capacity for accommodation at which we can only marvel. I suspect that our minds accept the thought but do not embrace the reality. The act of imagination is too great or too awful. Our minds can extend to a war in some distant jungle and set in motion the actions that reject it. But not yet to the nuclear holocaust. A commitment to this reality is now the supreme test of our politics."
It is in the light of this that we should
consider the agreement that declared Latin America a
denuclearised zone. Alfonso García Robles has rightly been
called the father of the Mexico Agreement. It is his ideas and
his realistic assessment that are reflected in the wording. He is
one of those people who possess the courage to face the truth of
the situation created by nuclear arms. And it is precisely for
this reason, too, that the successful negotiation of the
agreement redounds so very much to his credit.
Once the horrific truth about nuclear arms is recognised, the
question of nuclear armament likewise acquires a fresh dimension.
It is no longer a question of being for or against national
defence or an international system of security. The development
of nuclear arms has taken us well beyond this stage in the
argument. As everyone knows, there are today divided opinions on
the justification of military defence. Many of us believe - in
the light of what history has taught us - that a credible defence
of freedom, independence, and humanity must, in fact, be regarded
as the defence of peace. Others adopt a more or less consistent
pacifist attitude.
What the Mexico Agreement, however, so clearly demonstrates is
that we can no longer continue our argument on this level. The
matter has acquired a fresh perspective: we must seek a way out,
so that mankind can survive. This is the real disarmament problem
facing us today.
This has provided a platform on which all mankind will have to
come together, irrespective of political views or strategic
considerations. The alternative is a continued nuclear build-up
and the proliferation of nuclear arms, which can only lead
ultimately to a catastrophe.
Man was once told: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall
inherit the earth". Today we know that if the peacemakers fail in
their efforts, there will be no one left to inherit the earth, an
earth, moreover, no one would consider it worthwhile
inheriting!
Putting this truth across has been, and still is, the prime
concern of this year's Peace Prize winners. What they have
clearly shown us, too, is that the work of promoting peace and
disarmament must be carried on at several levels. It is vital to
spread information on the issue involved, so that a growing body
of public opinion capable of exerting pressure can be built up.
But this is not the only object, as Alva Myrdal has
explained:
"We must dare to believe that in their heart of hearts men desire peace on earth, but we shall never achieve this merely by coining slogans such as 'We Want Peace!' Our aim must be backed by intense efforts to find constructive proposals. The challenge facing peace workers is not to be found in a single universal question-and-answer, but in peaceful solutions to a host of conflicts, and in the exertion to achieve peace on many different levels."
This is precisely what the two Peace Prize
winners have confirmed in their endeavours. They know - better
than most people - what it means "to make intense efforts to find
constructive proposals". They have sought no facile short cuts,
because they know how vital it is that negotiations on
disarmament should be conducted on the basis of down-to-earth
realism and on the assumption of give-and-take between the great
powers.
And it is precisely in this connection - when we mention the
concept of give-and-take - that we get some notion of how
complicated and exhaustive the problem of disarmament is. It is
not sufficient merely to demonstrate a desire for peace; nor is
it sufficient simply to declare that nuclear arms must be done
away with. There is no difficulty in getting a wide measure of
agreement on aims of this kind.
Difficulty arises when these aims are to be realised through the
medium of practical political decisions; and this too is a
problem we must have the courage to face up to.
We have watched with growing impatience how difficult it is for
the nuclear powers to reach agreement on even the most modest
measures of disarmament; and we may well ask why it has not been
possible to make any progress with all the negotiations that have
been conducted. Maybe the ideological differences are too great?
Maybe it is impossible to break through the barrier of mutual
mistrust, which unfortunately has received far too much
nourishment? Is it once again fear that dominates and dictates
the premises on which global political decisions are made?
It is not easy to give a simple answer. Maybe this, too, is a
fact we shall have to take into account.
But what we can all see is that a power struggle and intense
rivalry are being waged between the great powers. In this
struggle there are several parties who believe that they are
compelled to safeguard vital interests, and who are genuinely
afraid of jeopardising the security of their country. For this
reason they feel compelled, one and all, to take military
precautions. It is not difficult to understand an attitude of
this kind.
But there is also a great deal to suggest that the big powers are
caught in what has been called the symbiotic trap, in which the
parties concerned are mutually motivating one another to arm.
This is how the trap works: In the East, information is received
to suggest that the West has plans for further rearmament. And
for this reason the East is compelled to arm - out of
consideration for its own security. In the West similar
information is received on new types of weapons being developed
in the East, and so the West is forced to react - they dare not
do otherwise. With each side placing the blame on the other, an
excuse is found for justifying the arms race.
The persons principally responsible for the present development
are, as a result of this, bound to be subject to tremendous
pressure. In these circumstances it would be difficult to arrive
at solutions which all parties concerned would consider
worthwhile and which they feel would ensure their safety. Very
careful assessment is necessary in order to arrive at solutions
of this kind, the main problem being to arrive at a platform on
which all interested parties can, despite their differences, come
together.
The question now is whether the fresh situation that has been
created by the nuclear powers might not be capable of providing a
platform of this kind, since no one can any longer be in any
doubt that today a joint interest, overshadowing all else, exists
for all the nations of the world - viz. to put a stop to the
nuclear arms race. This is the problem, overshadowing all others,
to which we must turn our gaze, and in our endeavours to reach
this goal all our efforts must and can be coordinated.
It is in the light of this that we can observe two clear lines
emerging in the work of disarmament. We have the meticulous work,
demanding a great deal of patience and time, that is carried on
through international negotiations for mutual disarmament. And it
should be emphasised that it is along this line that lasting and
real results can be achieved. But we have in addition the work of
the various peace movements, consciously committed to creating a
body of public opinion, and it must also be emphasised that if
this body of opinion is allowed to grow in strength and health,
reaching out across still more national boundaries, it could
constitute a decisive factor in ensuring the success of
international negotiations.
The way ahead may appear long and difficult, and it certainly
makes great demands both on the imagination and the patience -
and maybe above all on the unflinching honesty which dares to
look truth in the face, and still has the courage to
continue.
In awarding this year's Peace Prize to Alva Myrdal and
García Robles, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to
express its recognition of the intense endeavours undertaken by
two people to find constructive solutions to difficult
international disarmament negotiations.
At the same time the Committee is anxious - and in this
connection we believe we are speaking in the spirit of the
prizewinners - that the Peace Prize this year should be
interpreted as well as a helping hand to that body of public
opinion for the promotion of peace and disarmament to which they
themselves have proved such a valuable inspiration.
From Les Prix Nobel. The Nobel Prizes 1982, Editor Wilhelm Odelberg, [Nobel Foundation], Stockholm, 1983
Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1982
We are currently working on the web site. Please report errors or problems.
