1908 Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer
Klas Pontus Arnoldson – Biography
Klas Pontus Arnoldson (October 27, 1844-February 20, 1916), the Swedish journalist, pacifist, and proponent of Scandinavian unity, was a man of humble origin. Born at Göteborg, the son of a caretaker, he was obliged to discontinue his formal education in the public schools of Göteborg at the age of sixteen because of family financial difficulties after the death of his father in 1860. For the next twenty-one years he worked for a railroad, first as a clerk and then for ten years as a station inspector in Jonsered, Älgarås, and Tumba.
During these years, Arnoldson continued his studies, reading widely in history, religion, and philosophy; observed the political events of his day, especially the Danish-Austrian-Prussian War of 1864 and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871; and evolved the ideas on religion, politics, and peace that he developed in detail in his voluminous writings.
Arnoldson was a liberal in theology. Familiar with the humanistic tenets of religious movements originating in the nineteenth century in Great Britain and in the New England section of the United States, he decried fanatic dogmatism and espoused essentially Unitarian views on truth, tolerance, freedom of the individual conscience, freedom of thought, and human perfectability. These views he published in the Nordiska Dagbladet [Northern Daily] which he edited for a short time in the early 1870's, and in Sanningssökaren [The Truth Seeker], a monthly journal devoted to the exposition of «practical Christianity», as well as in books and pamphlets.
Arnoldson was also a liberal in political philosophy, committed to the practical application of the principle of democracy and individualism. From 1882 to 1887, as an elected member of the Parliament, he introduced legislation to extend the franchise and when it failed to pass, supported legislation which later succeeded; favored the extension of religious freedom; pursued an antimilitaristic policy; drafted a controversial resolution asking the government to investigate the possibility of guaranteed neutrality for Sweden1.
Outside Parliament Arnoldson carried on work for peace even more vigorously. Originally attracted to pacifism because of his repugnance for the wars of 1864 and 1870-1871 and because of his religious beliefs, Arnoldson was one of those instrumental in founding the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Association in 1883, occupying the position of secretary of the society and becoming the editor of Tiden [The Times], a medium for peace information and free debate. Not at his best in a managerial capacity, Arnoldson resigned from Tiden in 1885 when it ran into financial difficulties, and from his office with the peace society in 1887 when he felt himself being overwhelmed by financial problems, the pressure of work, and emotional depression. Arnoldson edited Fredsvännen [The Friend of Peace] from 1885 to 1888 and the Nordsvenska Dagbladet [North Sweden Daily] from 1892 to 1894. For the most part, however, he kept himself free of administrative and political duties, devoting his energies to speaking and writing on behalf of arbitration. In 1888 he mounted a campaign for a popular petition addressed to the king favoring arbitration agreements with foreign nations. Extending his agitation to Norway in 1890, he spoke to receptive audiences throughout the country and provided some of the impetus for the Norwegian Parliament's passage of a resolution on arbitration addressed to the king.
In the political controversy of 1895 between Norway and Sweden and in the final constitutional crisis which resulted in dissolution of their Union, Arnoldson sympathized with Norway. This was not popular in Sweden. When Arnoldson was named a Nobel peace laureate in 1908, some Swedish newpapers were incensed, saying that the award was an «outrage» against Sweden, a disgrace to «every Swedish man who takes pride in his national honor», and, to add injury to insult, was paid for with «Swedish money» given by a Swedish countryman. In reply, Løvland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, pointed out that Arnoldson's candidacy had been proposed by the unanimous vote of the Swedish Group of the Interparliamentary Union2.
Throughout his life, Arnoldson complemented his day-to-day political activity by writing. In his early years he wrote mainly journalistic pieces; in the last three decades of his life, he produced some major works. An historical essay on international law, Är världsfred möjlig? [Is World Peace Possible? translated into English under the title of Pax mundi], appeared in 1890; Religionen i forskningens ljus [Religion in the Light of Research] in 1891; a history of the pacifist idea, Seklernas hopp [The Hope of the Centuries], in 1901. He also wrote polemical fiction, putting his pacifist message into novelistic and dramatistic form.
Although Arnoldson suffered from periods of illness throughout his life, he lived to be seventy-two, dying of a heart attack in Stockholm in 1916.
Klas Pontus Arnoldson – Nobel Lecture
Nobel Lecture*, December 10, 1908
World Referendum
Like many such legends in many nations, an old Nordic saga tells of a time when the streets were paved with gold without tempting anyone to sin, a time when human beings were good and their customs and laws mild, inspired by the spirit of wisdom. The whole world lived a life of happiness. This paradise was buried in a mire of conflict and degraded values. However, the hope of finding it again is not yet lost. The nature of man provides a guarantee of this. Man's nature is fundamentally good, or perhaps it is neither good nor evil. In any case, man is something to work on. We must hold fast to this fact - man is something to work on.
The age of our race can perhaps be reckoned in millions of years. So it is probably true that the human brain has now reached a state of high development and that after an immeasurable process of evolution it is now biologically and physiologically similar in all peoples and races.
Accepting this as a scientific fact, one necessarily comes to the conclusion that every normal human being must be as susceptible to the light of knowledge as he is to the light of the sun. It is in his nature to want peace rather than war. Education is the only certain road to the final goal of peace. And there is no higher goal.
"In truth," someone replies, "the rule of law is higher; and so are personal freedom and national independence." But for these, as for all the other good things of life, peace is perforce a prerequisite.
This idea confuses those who lack understanding. "Surely", they say, "one has to defend oneself." And they add: "National defense can be likened to fire insurance" or "Nobody wants his house to stand open to thieves and murderers" or "Nobody wants to walk unarmed in the woods, surrounded by robbers and brigands." And so on. Seductive phrases! For civilized peoples are not gangs of brigands, and their rulers not robber barons.
Of course, it is not a question of giving up one's national independence. We hold on to that which is dear to our hearts, but we must see things in their true perspective. Without peace there is no freedom, individual or national. War and hostilities are a form of slavery. Under such conditions, the laws are silent. Without peace there is nothing truly human. Peace is harmony. And harmony is the highest ideal of life.
For a long time this fact has been clear to seekers of the lost paradise, those thorn-crowned servants of humanity. Unnoticed by the world, their work has persevered through the ages, just as, slowly and quietly in a dark crevice of the earth, the forming of a brilliant diamond goes on for thousands and thousands of years. No sound rises from the silent depths while atom fuses with atom and the crystal slowly grows, finally to gleam and glitter in a royal crown.
Thus the concept of peace, mankind's most brilliant treasure, has at last been disclosed to the eyes of us all. No one now denies its beauty; all extol its worth. But these tributes have all too often taken the form of words alone, seldom that of actions as well.
At last, however, it has dawned on many people in all countries that militarism lies like a heavy curse over the land. Perhaps, though, the reason for this does not lie entirely in the unutterable woe of war - woe which defies description. Unfortunately we have not yet reached the stage where militarism is condemned on these grounds.
We do not yet consider it beneath ourselves to invent and develop tools of destruction. We have not yet been seized with a holy wrath against evil, against militarism's coarsening influence on our inner selves, an influence which darkens our view of life and nurtures that frightened and insidious distrust which beguiles us into inflicting on each other so much suffering, so much wrong and sorrow.
Rather, it is with the economic weight of the militaristic systems that many people are concerned. It is estimated that for each minute of the nineteenth century, 1,350 Swedish kroner were spent on armaments in Europe. The burden of armaments on the great powers between the first and second conferences at The Hague - that is to say, in the eight years 1899-1907 - increased by sixty-nine million pounds sterling. And the increase is still continuing. As far as the smaller states were concerned, in Sweden for example, the annual military expenditure increased from 27.7 million Swedish kroner to 84.3 million over the years 1888-1908; in other words, it more than trebled in two decades. Ample evidence of this increase may be obtained; for instance, from the International Peace Bureau in Bern or the Nobel Institute in Oslo.
The relation between the pressures of militarism and the deterioration of social conditions becomes more and more apparent. Vast resources are absorbed by militarism, without benefit to anyone. If these were set free, we could double the harvests of the nourishing earth, harness the power of roaring rivers for mills and factories, and open up undreamt of opportunities to challenge the finest talents possessed by man.
That something must be done to eliminate this evil now seems clear even to those in power in the world.
The Czar of Russia issued a Peace Manifesto1 which led to the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, and the President of the United States is encouraging the nations to use it2. The aged ruler of Austria-Hungary3 is often called the "Emperor of Peace" on account of his character. The young Italian monarch4 has created an International Agricultural Institute which he maintains with his own private means, and has also offered to pay for the marble for the Palace of Peace at The Hague. The British head of state5 is at the forefront of an entente policy which seeks to anticipate complications leading to hostility. King Edward greeted the World Peace Congress in London6 with words to the effect that the heads of state could not aim at any goal higher than that of fostering a common spirit of understanding and warm friendship between nations, such being the surest means of realizing the highest ideal of humanity; and he further promised that "to achieve this goal would be [his] perpetual endeavor". Kaiser Wilhelm7, in a telegram to the Interparliamentary Conference in Berlin8, said that he took the blessings of peace very much to heart, and the Crown Prince echoed these words, stating on behalf of his father, that the latter's greatest concern was the maintenance of peace, "which is, and shall ever be the foundation of all true cultural progress". The president of the French Republic9 finds it natural to continue to advocate world peace, and the Japanese sovereign10 neglects no opportunity to convince the world of his love of peace.
At every suitable opportunity, the heads of smaller states express themselves in the same spirit to the world press, as also do the responsible ministers in parliament when accompanying their heads of state to the more and more frequent peace conferences.
An ever increasing volume of intercourse is occurring between the various nations through their representatives in science and art, health care and education, communications, trade and industry, and all other cultural fields. The human feeling of spiritual affinity is the fundamental motivation of all these international congresses and conferences. This idealistic impulse shared by all peoples is leading to real agreements and to laws which are incompatible with war and militarism.
Now, at last, active pacifists from all classes of society are receiving considerable assistance from the modern labor movement, which participates in the effort to forestall war by advocating arbitration and disarmament. At the Stuttgart Congress in the spring of 1908, 900 representatives of ten million organized workers from all the states of the world unanimously accepted a resolution to try to abolish all militaristic systems and to prevent all international acts of force. Furthermore, at the meeting of the International Socialist Bureau in Brussels last autumn, it was unanimously declared that one of the main tasks of the labor organizations would be to try to avert the danger of war.
It is thus obvious that in such matters the interests of the governments and of the governed are identical. This fact receives constant confirmation at the international meetings of sovereigns and peoples. The persistence of a state of suspense and anxiety in the world must therefore be imputed to other interests, which achieve this result through rumors of war which appear now and then. It would be much wiser to try to expose the meaning of such rumors than to let ourselves be taken in by them.
Nowadays it is probable that no subject of international disagreement would lead to war if it were first submitted to examination by experts. This procedure is as a rule adopted by the responsible governments of states in the case of vital international questions. Of course, Europe in particular is still divided into certain power groups, but when anything vital is at stake, there is immediate cooperation, as seen in Morocco, the Balkans, Crete, etc.11 Then too the new Scandinavian treaties are peaceably and tranquilly succeeding in providing greater security12. Such an approach is also likely to be applicable to colonial policy, despite what the "know-it-alls" say about trade wars and the like.