Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER: Throughout human history, there have been two great driving and competing forces, nationalism and universalism. Nationalism attempts to realize a peoples political, cultural, and economic ambitions within borders while at the same time keeping an armed watch on others outside these borders.

Universalism attempts to attain common solutions for these same ambitions while at the same time providing such solutions to all peoples and crossing all borders.

Both are often militant and they do not hesitate to use force to make the world accept what they know is the right and the truth. In doing this, they often violate peace, the very peace that is the vision of both nationalism and universalism, the peace that is their final goal.

I use here the word universalism as the opposite of nationalism instead of the more commonly used word internationalism. International means between nations and as like I look upon it, really an expression for practical and concrete relations between nations.

Universalism, however, extends beyond the limits of borders. It is something beyond specific nations. It is supranational. As such, it is the real force opposing nationalism.

Today, I propose to discuss whether there is a synthesis between the thesis of nationalism and its antithesis universalism, a synthesis that can foster international peace or to put it in more direct and realistic terms, help men to survive better than the elusive dreams of nationalism and universalism.

Nationalism is as old as mankind if we apply the word to mean that feeling of community of individuals based on geography, race, language, or beliefs that men have had at all times.

This feeling of community has often found strength and meaning by being directed against others, against outsiders. This nationalism has had an amazingly vitalizing power when spurring man to lift himself out of darkness and misery.

At the same time, unfortunately, nationalism often attempts to force others, the outsiders, back to the very darkness from which their own national community has just emerged.

Just as an individuals own struggle to be somebody opens the way towards self-respect and self-realization, so communities of people have found their way to national attainment and to the possibility of determining their own future through a hard and militant nationalism.

The psychological background of this process has very accurately been described by the 19th century French author and philosopher, Georges Sorel, in his book [SPEAKING FRENCH], Thoughts on Violence, and by the modern French-Algerian doctor Frantz Fanon in his book [SPEAKING FRENCH], the Damned or the World.

Human history is filled with the sufferings caused by this process. First, there is the violence to attain freedom, and then there are the wars in which the newly won national independence and power is manifested against other peoples or other nations. The history of Europe is in many respects a medical case study of this disease.

In history books, it is transformed into heroic tales. In reality, it is a story of human slaughter, Swedes against Danes, Poles against Russians, Germans against French, Japanese against Chinese, and so on and on, where cruelty and passion are hidden under the noble slogans of God, king, and country.

However, we must also recognize the other side of nationalism, the cultural and social vitalisation that comes from it. For example, I think of the powerful forces released in Norway at the end of the 19th century.

At that time, in Norway, there was a great movement to attain freedom from the union with Sweden, the union that the brilliant author and Nobel Prize winner, Bjornstjerne Bjornson, described as [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH], or the pact that plagues us that we hate and damn.

By the way, the Nobel Foundation established in 1900 is the only survivor of that very union, broken up in 1905. So the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian storting is one of the foundation's five prize committees, the other four located in Sweden.

Bjornstjerne Bjornson didn't break up that union. The Norwegians choose the prize winners for peace and the foundation pays the prize in the economic sense, of course.

Moving back to Norway, Norwegian nationalism led to an eruption of cultural forces that gave birth out of a nation of only two million fishermen and farmers living on a remote edge of Europe to such writers as Ibsen and Bjornson, mathematicians as Abel, musicians, Grieg, and painters as monk. A remarkable record indeed.

When we look back at the astounding technological and social developments in the West, in Europe, North America, and Japan during the last two centuries, many new developments provide an explanation-- science and technology, birth control, improved food production through land reform, et cetera.

But a constant driving force behind all this was nationalism and its power to inspire people's self-assertion and self-realization. It was only after the French Revolution that nationalism became a truly articulated philosophy.

It was in the small university towns of Germany, a country that had been overrun by the victorious armies of Napoleon, that the philosophy of nationalism was shaped, a philosophy that finally killed the Napoleonic dream of a united supranational Europe under the French emperor.

Napoleon used the power of bayonets, but the German philosophers and writers, Kant Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling, possessed the power of ideas. So Napoleon's dream ended at Waterloo, but the ideas formulated at those German universities showed a remarkable ability to survive.

Today, we can hear these very concepts and words expressed in Chinese, Arabic, Spanish, Swahili, or Russian. We can hear them in Southeast Asia, in Africa, in Latin America. In Europe, industrialism and nationalism marched forward together. Today, we meet them united again in the revolutions of the third world.

Nationalism can be said to have been born on the battlefields when the people's armies of the French Revolution crushed the mercenaries of emperors and kings. Napoleon was finally conquered only when his own army confronted people's armies of other countries.

But nationalism represented not only war and violence. It was also closely related to the literary school of Romanticism with Botes Leiden. Violence and Romanticism, they are often combined into the Romanticism of violence, a dangerous and fateful ingredient in nationalism. We meet it today in the hijacking of airplanes and the taking of hostages.

However, against the background of our own experiences, we must also show understanding for the role that nationalism plays and that it will play to an even greater extent in the liberation process underway in the third world.

It is a nationalism that can give a disturbing and frightening impression that can manifest itself in repulsive cruelties and stupid actions. I will not here give any specific examples. You all know them. We meet them in the mass medias, in our newspapers, in dispatches from Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

But when reading about these cruelties and stupidities, we feel outraged quite rightly so, but let us not then forget our own history. Our own list of nationalistic excesses is quite impressive. Let me only remind you what happened in the '30s in the middle of civilized Europe.

The power that naturalism is able to generate can affect a nation internally as well as internationally. If the third world nationalism can be channeled into actions within their own countries, it can serve as an important peace factor in the world. It can thereby contribute to abolishing poverty, which is always a threat to peace.

But if nationalists cannot be channeled in this way but instead turns into aggression against others, then it can become one of the most serious threats to the future of mankind.

Let us now turn to the other great force, universalism. Universalism tends to close itself in the garments of idealism, especially when it appears as internationalism. We like to look upon it as the bearer of the good, the true, and the just, as the faithful ally of world peace and promoter of understanding between men.

But if we look at it a little closer, universalism has also unfortunately other characteristics. No doubt universalism has world peace as its goal, but the path to this goal is sometimes bordered with sufferings and cruelties that can compare with that of nationalisms.

Universalism aims at the best for mankind that often at the price of tyranny and concentration of power. The universalism that I speak of has been carried forth by the Macedonians, the Romans, by the Habsburgs and the Bourbons, by Christianity and socialism.

The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages in many respects was at that time the inheritor of the Roman Empire. And the Marxist teachings in our days stood and stand for a forceful and missionary universalism designed to redeem humanity, even if they must do so against the will of the redeemed.

As the German phrase expresses it, [SPEAKING GERMAN]. Or to use a more subtle American expression, if you ain't with me, you are agin me. Talking about the Catholic Church, let me be quite clear on this point. I talk of the Catholic Church of the time long ago when it preached with the sword.

This universalism, if it is to attain its goals, must break down some of the man's deepest instincts, the desire for freedom and independence, the will to create one's own future. Nevertheless, the ultimate goal of universalism does have allure, does have allure.

Pax Romana, the centuries long Roman peace, the Christian nation of God, the socialistic utopia all offer a shining vision well worth a high price. And mankind certainly has paid a high price. What Pax Romana cost is today impossible to calculate with scientific accuracy.

But Voltaire, who certainly had no scientific inhibitions, estimated that religious wars had cost mankind about 100 millions in dead. Modern historians have estimated that the religious wars of the 17th century cost the lives of half of Europe's population.

The religious wars of our time, the struggle between socialism and capitalism in all its various forms and between various factions has likely been no less bloody than the wars against which Voltaire directed his accusations. This then is the negative face of universalism.

But let's turn back to its other face, to its more appealing side. The missionary universalism, whether it be Christian or socialist, is based on a yearning to find holistic solutions to the problems of humanity, solutions that can overcome differences of language race that will not run aground or be limited by irrational borders that people have built around themselves or against others.

However, if we turn to universalism more down to earth, less lofty, and unobtrusive cousin internationalism, that is cooperation between nations, it is not difficult to see that it can offer solutions of great significance in the world threatened by nuclear warfare, the population explosion, energy shortage, starvation, and the list can go on and on.

International cooperation offers the only real possibility to disarm the population bomb before it explodes, to bridge the gap between supply and demand for energy, and to produce an adequate amount of food.

If we have to have a serious chance of accomplishing this, we must also accept an international power structure capable of making and enforcing decisions. And this in turn means that we must be willing to give up certain parts of our national sovereignty. It is necessary, it is necessary, but is it possible?

How difficult it is can be studied in Brussels where the nations of the European community so close to each other in all respects are advancing in this direction only at snail pace, while at the same time the crisis of our time run wild.

Unfortunately, at the very time when there is urgent need for increased internationalism, we can see a new wave of nationalism sweeping over the Western nations.

If nationalism must be accepted as an important ally in the battle for development in the underdeveloped nations, it must be recognized as a dangerous and negative force in what ironically has been called the overdeveloped nations.

Nationalism in the third world is often healthy and natural. In the rich industrial countries, it can easily assume an almost diseased egocentric character. Today, there is a strong tendency towards introversion among the rich nations, a disturbing nonchalance in relation to problems other than those in one's own backyard.

International organizations do not have the power and the means to formulate today a truly international solutions. Should we blame the UN, the United Nations for not offering the kind of strong leadership the world situation requires?

No, I think it would be unfair because the United Nations is the mirror of the world and the world seems not yet ready to accept that kind of leadership, because we still live in a fool's paradise.

And yet I have to admit that I have an intense feeling of fear and suspense, the feeling you have when you look at the thriller on the TV screen seated comfortably in your home looking at the unsuspicious hero walking happily into a dark and threatening alley. We can switch off the TV, but we can't switch off the world.

In Western Europe, the European community finds itself in a serious crisis of confidence at the very same time that it has been enlarged after decades of efforts to bring in other nations as members or associates so that at long last it includes all of Western Europe.

This crisis results from increasing nationalism and an unwillingness to give up short-term national advantages in order to attain long-term international goals of vital significance for the whole of the community.

Aversion against internationalism can also be seen behind the increasing attacks on the multinational companies. These companies have carried out the ideas of universalism in a most practical manner and have created effective economic organizations extending over nation's borders.

They have acted as if the national states and the borders were mere shadows, and they have been most successful, apparently too successful.

Too often, these attacks against the multinationals are in effect directed against international free trade. They aim at the multinationals, but they hit free trade. The multinationals have acted in the very spirit of free trade that is an international division of labor.

Free trade in my view today is in greater danger than it has been during the last 30 years. Nationalistic protectionism is threatening to take over, and it surely will be helped by a general recession aggravated by the oil crisis.

The situation calls for dramatic initiatives of the kind the United States government took in the '40s and the '50s using its tremendous international prestige, magnificent initiatives that gave birth to get to OEC and to OECD. But unfortunately, today it's difficult to discern the sparkle that could give new life to free trade.

Of course, there are cases where multinational companies have used their power, their position in a reprehensible manner, and there certainly are multinationals that have attained an all too dominant role in world economy.

But it would be extremely damaging to the welfare of the world if the national states were to try to break up the multinational companies. It would be much better to establish an International Code of Conduct for multinationals along with means to ensure that the code is really observed.

We must safeguard the multinational companies systems of international challenging of knowledge in such fields as science, technology, marketing, and management.

The developing countries would be among those to suffer most if these channels were to be blocked in the future. But the unquestionable power of the multinational companies must become a power with responsibility.

It is interesting to note that two of the last year's Nobel Prize winners, Leo Esaki and Ivar Giaever, worked for multinational companies, Esaki for IBM and Giaever for General Electric. It's also interesting to note how international, if not multinational, research has become.

Again, looking at this year's Nobel prizes, we see that of the 12 prize winners, the majority, seven, have been citizens of more than one nation during their lifetime.

If you take physics, Giaever he was born in Norway and now he is a United States citizen. And in medicine, Von Frisch, he was born in Austria, but now he is a German citizen.

Konrad Lorenz, who is a difficult case, born in Austria, lived for many years in Germany. When we asked him for his nationality, he said, oh, I'm a I'm an Austrian-German-- or I mean, a German-Austrian. We had to force him to decide between them and finally, he came down on the Austrian side.

Tinbergen, a Dutchman, his brother got the prize, Nobel Prize in economics as a Dutchman, but now he is a United King subject, United Kingdom subject.

Take literature, Patrick White, he has been British for some years and now he is proud of being an Australian. If you take peace, Dr. Kissinger, born in Germany and now very much an American citizen.

And last but not least, Wassily Leontief, born in St. Petersburg, he told me his first memories was of the funeral of Tolstoy. He saw Lenin addressing the people, the workers outside the Winter Palace.

He lived through the revolution. He spent some months, I think, in the prisons of Stalin. He escaped to Germany. He got his education in Berlin, and he came to the United States and is now an American citizen.

I think all this is truly in the spirit of Alfred Nobel, who was born in Sweden, raised in Russia, who created his multinational business empire from headquarters in France constantly traveling around the world, I think, without holding a passport, and finally who died in Italy.

So undoubtedly, science and business are among the most vigorous international, if not universal, forces of the world of today, as was the case at the time of Alfred Nobel.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I have attempted to point out some of the positive and the negative sides of nationalism and of universalist internationalism. As we see, they have, as the Roman god Janus, two faces.

The conclusion that we can draw can be presented in the form of a balance sheet, which would look like the following. Under nationalism, assets are listed as the ability to mobilize forces towards development. It can stimulate a national culture and create national self-respect. It develops a feeling of self-determination.

Nationalism liabilities include aggression against others, narrow policies, short-sighted solutions to problems. It can create an attitude of "what's good for us is good for the world." It can lead to anti-intellectualism.

Under universalist internationalism, assets include the desire to find rational, holistic solutions. It can open the way towards possibilities of human survival. It looks at man regardless of race, language, or religion.

On the liability side, universalist internationalism can appear pale and anemic. Having no root in the primary instincts of man, it means remote control and does not provide for a feeling of participation in influencing decisions.

When we study the balance sheet, we find that negative and positive aspects, the assets and liabilities, balance quite evenly. They create a stalemate out of nationalism thesis and the antithesis of universalist internationalism.

But here the question arises. Is there no possible synthesis, a national internationalism that combines the best qualities of the two opposing forces? I believe that the question can be answered in the affirmative. Or rather, I believe it necessary to find such a synthesis if we want our civilization to survive.

It is important, it is important, I believe, to preserve the sense of community that a geographically defined nation provides a community of people who share the same language, language in the widest sense, a community that is not only one for the present, but has its roots in the past.

A people without a history is like a man who has suffered a loss of memory. It is incomplete. This sense of belonging to a community is important to artistic and cultural creativity.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, he refuses to leave the Soviet Union for he fears being cut off from the Russia he loves and without which he would lose his identity as an artist and a human being. We therefore must preserve our national states.

However, it should not be taken for granted that the highly centralized national states created in the 19th century will always remain the best possible national states or communities. In many parts, there are cultural and linguistic minorities that should be offered a wider scope of self-determination.

In Western Europe, we notice increasing interest in ancient communities that preceded the present national states, Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Friesland, Flanders, Bavaria, the Faroe Islands, Sicily, et cetera. We see it in certain regions of Spain and even in Sweden.

This interest is perhaps spurred by romantic emotions, but this does not lessen its potence. As far as Eastern Europe is concerned, we can only imagine what occurs there in this regard. In this way, ancient desires and loyalties are vitalized by a new interest in decentralization and local influence.

In many places, the present natural states could very well benefit from the vitalization that greater local self-determination can provide to society and to its people. It might bring citizens closer to the decision-making process and thus reduce the serious threat to democracy posed by the increasing remoteness of politicians and the cynicism of their voters.

There are many examples of this. For example, we can look at the last elections in Denmark that shocked the whole of Scandinavia. But it was very much the mirror of the situation in one of the safest democracies in the world.

Today, both in the United States and Europe, there is a very strong and growing interest in reducing central control and bringing decision-making closer to local administrative and legislative bodies. This is a very important movement and its power should be utilized constructively for the future.

It is interesting to note how modern the ideas of the founding fathers of the United States in this respect still are as we approach the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

While bringing the decision-making process closer to the individuals, there are the same time many vital problems that must be brought up to a higher international level-- security questions, the military and foreign policy aspects, monetary problems, economic policy, pollution control, energy and food, to name but a few. All this must be discussed and viewed in long range international perspectives and not only as a local issue.

We are here facing international problems that must be solved internationally on a global scale. The nation state created in the 19th century does not offer the proper form for solving these problems of the 20th and the 21st century.

Thus, internationalism desires towards universalism to view humanity as a whole without regard to race, language, or religion must be interwoven with the roots of the past reaching back to the villages and to the man's feeling of community with his neighbors.

This synthesis is perhaps utopia, the belief that man can combine the lofty ideals of global internationalism with plain down to earth nationalism.

General Charles de Gaulle called for [SPEAKING FRENCH], Europe of the fatherlands. What we should strive for is a world community of fatherlands. It is perhaps a dream, a utopian dream, but are not utopias necessary if we are to have the strength to believe in a tomorrow in our quest for survival?

The Nobel Foundation and the Nobel prizes are in their way an example of how that dream can come alive. Alfred Nobel, the multinational scientist and businessman, stipulated that the prizes should be given, and here I quote his last will, that the price should be given to those who have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind without consideration of nationality.

He gave to the old scientific literary and political institutions of Sweden and Norway the great task of selecting the laureates. Thus, firmly rooted in Scandinavia, the prizes have come to play a considerable international role serving as a constant reminder of the international nature of science and the arts.

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, the Nobel conferences of Gustavus Adolphus College are deeply animated by the same spirit. It is a great honor and pleasure indeed to have the privilege to address you today to participate in this conference. Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]