Peace
(Sven-Olof Olson)

(Editor's Note: The following was contributed by Einar (BOB) Thrap-Olsen
RC Gordes, D-1760 (France). Olson was speaking at the Rotary Presidential Celebration, Stockholm, August 13^th 2003.)

I have been asked to make my speech under the main heading of Peace. I would like to state first of all that there are no universal keys to the riddle of peace, something which should be obvious to all of those here present. Therefore I make no pretence of presenting any solutions or magic tricks like "Open, Sesame". The question of peace is too complicated and hard to tackle, at the same time as being immensely important. My simple goal with this speech is to make it thought provoking, hopefully increasing our (and Rotary's) commitment to peace. I hope it will activate us on this issue and hopefully make us get a bit further along towards the goal of a common path of action for Rotary.

I am convinced that quite a few people have raised their eyebrows on seeing a general and once head of the air force on the schedule as one of the main speakers on the subject of Peace. However, it is mainly as a private person and a Rotarian for more than 35 years that I appear here, not as a general. In other words, it is my own private views that I will present, hoping that they will be shared by many.

I’m not especially surprised about the raised eyebrows. During my active years I noticed that the more radical individuals in what we normally call the "Peace Movements" like to create a contrast between those who favour national defense and those who - according to the "radicals" - are "friends of peace". A general is often presented as a symbol of war, not as an advocate of peace. Sometimes the tone of voice is vehement. Sometimes I get the feeling that we should work for peace among the peace-makers. Perhaps someone would think that I have changed my ideas about war and peace just like the devil who "turns religious in his old age" according to the old adage. This is quite wrong. During my years of active military service I voiced my preference for peace on innumerable occasions without losing my devotion to my profession. I would go so far as to state that the more you learn about the nature of war the more diligently you want to guard peace. In saying this I would like to stress the importance of and the need for tolerance - to-day’s second main topic - in our own debate on peace as well. The headline "Peace and Tolerance" is therefore relevant in a local as well as in a global perspective.

Let us not forget that the main goal of our national defense is to preserve peace, in Sweden as well as internationally. According to a loose definition one can therefore maintain that working for the national defense equals belonging to a peace movement. Doubtlessly the conditions dictating national safety measures have changed to a large extent during the last ten to fifteen years. I’m thinking of the fall of the Soviet Union, the advent of the European Community and several other factors, but this has not changed the main goal of Swedish defense, that of guarding peace first of all. On the other hand the methods and means of doing this have changed, among other things because the international tasks mainly within the frame of the UN have increased in importance.

Talking about changes in national security policies, to a large extent connected with our relations to the former Soviet Union, I would like to mention a small episode which contributed to decreasing the tense relations with our vast Eastern neighbour. In 1972 I commanded an official visit by 10 "Draken" fighter aircraft to Moscow. This was in fact the first ever military air force visit from the West. Apart from being an exciting mission this visit established good relations which later developed and had the effect of decreasing tension. Incidentally one of my pilots was named "Fred" (peace), so I could honestly say I brought Peace.

Serious research into the topic of peace and conflict in Sweden is of a fairly recent date. Only towards the end of the sixties and beginning of the seventies was the subject given the space it deserves at our universities. Among other things, researchers want to find out the underlying reasons for conflicts, why they erupt and how they should be overcome. Another topic is to find possibilities for peaceful solutions of conflicts between states. The Stockholm International Research Institute has a central position among independent research institutes, even regarded in a global perspective.

Mankind’s call for peace should not be low-voiced. It should not fall on deaf ears. It must not cease. But it should not lose its sense, nor become unforgiving or unconditional. It must not lose its contents, nor become a goal in itself for which we would not be prepared to sacrifice something.

All of us give way to wishful thinking sometimes. When Martin Luther King said the almost winged words "I have a dream" they were to start with a dream-like wishful thought, but with time they grew to a power which made the dream come true. If I were allowed to make Martin Luther King’s words my own and say "I have a dream", then that dream would be to see a world, our world, where all people on our revolving little globe would be able to live in peace with one another. I know that it is a utopian thought. I know that my generation will never live to see this, nor the next generation, nor probably the one after that. But perhaps all the small rivulets that work for peace in different ways might be able to unite to a frothing river that makes the dream come true, just as persistent drops excavate the stone in the end.

It is belief in the future and belief in our own will and ability that is the prerequisite of success. The pessimist’s way of looking at things leads to dejection, passivity and defeat. But I must add that optimism must not be utopian but based on reality. Therefore I want to stress the combined concept of optimistic realism.

I regard to-day’s conference arranged by Swedish Rotarians as a drop that will help excavating the stone. Our thoughts are awakened to an increased awareness of the importance of peace just by the fact that Rotary makes Peace and Tolerance an issue. Rotary has contributed greatly to fighting polio in the world. I hope that Rotary will find even more tangible ways than it has up to now of committing itself to peace. Our international youth exchange is one positive example and a step in the right direction.

A number of years ago I made a speech in front of the students of the University of Lund. Its title was: "Who is [sole] subscriber to peace?" My choice of a subject referred to something that I have already mentioned - many consider themselves champions of peace but work in different ways. There are those who consider themselves sole subscribers to the sake of peace, fighting or slandering others that have the same goal but approach it differently. It would not hurt if we learnt to be a little more tolerant and less antagonistic ourselves. Sometimes I have seen the fight for peace carried out in an outright aggressive way. This is as paradoxical as when those who say they want to fight for a better society start by wrecking all shops in one of the main streets of Gothenburg, just to take an example that comes readily to hand [an allusion to the anti-EU demonstrations]. What are the true motives?

Is there nothing to be happy about in our time, then? Of course there is. Europe has never before enjoyed such a long period of peace as that after the end of the second world war. The United Nations and the European Community have played an important role in this. However, internecine tragedies in already defined states have not been prevented, especially in former Yugoslavia. It is a fact that fewer wars are going on in the world to-day than forty years ago. It would be a good thing if the trend were to continue, but those wars that do go on are bad enough and we can see them being carried out with great cruelty. Moreover, we have seen and still see examples of states that live in formal peace with others but where it is the population that bears the main brunt of an inner chaos.

Just as war has many faces the word Peace means different things for different people depending on their situation. War can be waged between states and inside states. War can be waged with psychological weapons only. Formal peace can reign but the individual human beings can be totally devoid of human rights. In other words a definition of PEACE as the absence of WAR is not enough.

If one were to put the question "What does peace mean to you" to people in various parts of the world one would get many different answers.

One person would only wish for a life in harmony and concord with his neighbours.

Another would wish for an end to civil war so as to be able to experience safety.

A third would wish for the ability to think, talk and write without jeopardizing his personal freedom.

A fourth would wish for enough food so that his children at least could survive. And so on and so on…

It’s really not difficult to bring about what we usually mean by peace. All it takes is just to relent and let the stronger have his way. But that is not the kind of peace we want. Hitler tried but luckily the rest of the world put an end to his endeavours. Therefore it is important that we join the word PEACE with other governing words. If I were to choose, the two most important ones would be FREEDOM and TOLERANCE. I do not mean a passive tolerance that just accepts what happens. I mean a tolerance mated with respect for the views of others, not least concerning strivings towards the same main goal, supposing of course that the goal is a positive one.

The word FREEDOM includes many things. Peace without freedom is not worth much. Unfortunately all too many people around the world can testify to the truth of these words to-day. The words of Bishop Thomas are still valid and not only to us Swedes: "Freedom is the best thing that can be found in the world" [a line from a famous Swedish poem]. It takes an active effort to mate the words FREEDOM and TOLERANCE with the concept of peace. It takes power, courage and a readiness to sacrifice. Nor can we base the discussion on our own favorable situation at home. Knowledge, insight into international affairs and empathy are necessary in order to give the concepts real meaning in each single case. Another way of looking at it would almost be an affront to all countries and people who are prepared to fight and even lose their lives, threatened by the loss of liberty or maybe already having lost it. Then we cannot remain passive or be content with our own situation.

The second issue of the Red Cross magazine this year carries the following text in large letters on its front page:

"PEACE is not only absence of war
but also respect for
human rights
and a just distribution
of the resources of the world
in order to meet the needs
of all peoples."

I too would like to subscribe to this definition of peace by the Red Cross.

However, too many people probably consider all this talk of peace on earth as utopian. Do we not have to accept the presence of evil as well in the world and thereby discord and war? Is it not contradictory that so many wars are going on at the same time that (almost) all leaders say they are advocates for peace? It is not probable that all of them are right. We do live in a rather insecure world that is full of unfairness, globally speaking. Let us suppose for instance that the religions of the world would show a little more respect and understanding for each other. What an enormous step forward for peace that would be! Imagine the tolerance that Rotary advocates making a break-through here!

I have sometimes wondered why we human beings are putting our gifts to use as poorly as we do. We do not give ourselves whole-heartedly to solving the vital questions of coexistence, overpopulation, hunger, environment and energy supplies, just to mention a few examples. Instead we devote great effort to finding new ways of killing each other. It neither seems constructive nor human. Or is it properly human? In that case it is deeply deplorable, but I for one would not like to give up hope.

During past centuries mankind has seen many geniuses come into the world and work, most often for the best of their fellow men. More often than not, however, the results of the great and revolutionary steps forward have been taken into service by war at least as quickly and effectively as by peace. How is that? Many of the great minds, for example Leonardo da Vinci, Newton and Einstein, are supposed to have had a firm belief in God. Newton (the one with the falling apple, you know) is supposed to have said once that "God has to set the clock right from time to time". If this is true I’m sure many besides me wonder why God does not step in a little more often, seeing how badly we manage ourselves.

Some years ago I visited our big space observatory outside Gothenburg, at that time headed was professor Olof Rydbeck, founder of the institution and a great personality. It was exciting, to say the least, to hear about the contacts, be they still one-sided that have been established with other worlds. As a layman one is struck by the unbelievable precision of outer space. What a contrast this is to the lack of order, not to say chaos that we humans are responsible for here on earth, in spite of being conscious that we only have the resources that are contained in our common little globe, a speck of gravel in the universe. I asked one of the junior professors if he could explain these contrasts. He answered with a parable.

All researchers want to do experiments. In order to get material for comparison one of the experiments is permitted go on with a minimum of human intervention to see what happens. Now, he envisaged a higher power (in which he professed belief) arranging the universe according to a very precise pattern. As a comparison God let the cluster that the earth belongs to develop on its own to see what would happen, in other words testing the ability of man to solve his own problems. I found the parable interesting but the results dejecting. We approach overpopulation; we fight and make war on one another. Religiously we are divided and we keep destroying our finite resources. How readily the words of Axel Oxenstierna [famous Swedish statesman of the seventeenth century] to his son come to mind: "Do you not know, my son, how little wisdom that goes into governing the world?"

Does this then mean that our situation is hopeless? How would I know? I do not want to think so. Of course I would like to see Newton’s God step in a little more often to set the clock right, but my most important conclusion is still that mankind has its fate in its own hands. The inertia of mankind is great. It is like turning a tanker, but many and repeated nudges can budge even the most inert mass. Let therefore this day, on the theme of Peace and Tolerance, become such a contribution, a nudge that in time will push mankind onto the right track.

I would like to finish by quoting a couple of small poems that were sent to me after having made a speech on peace questions in front of teachers during my time as head of the Air Force. Pupils in grade three wrote them, and this is what Margareta says [the original is in rhyme]:

The dove bears happiness
So we may think
Peace is life, as the dove said
I think that is good
Future bears love
It’s like a game
War, all of it, is like a great treachery

And this is what Elenor writes:

If we can’t be friends at school
At work and in other places
How, then, will there be peace in the whole world?
We must make an effort and stick together
In order to have peace in all countries

I think that these thoughts by children, at that time in grade three, bear the stamp of wisdom and a certain belief in the future. Is not the message somewhat like that of our world president, "Lend a hand" or should we perhaps say "Reach out your hand and let us be friends!"

Sven-Olof Olson

[Translation by Stellan Wijkström, Rotary Club of Eksjö, District 2380]

**********************************************