
Concluding a symposium held at the United Nations which included the presentation of the 1984 Third World Prize to Mr Willy Brandt, former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, BCC President, Agha Hasan Abedi, addressed a distinguished audience of politicians, scientists, economists and businessmen.
Here in full is Mr Abedi’s address published in BCC inhouse magazine July 1985 issue.
Your carefully considered recommendations, for a mutual and verifiable freeze, for a declaration of no first use, for the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty and for an agreement not to proceed with the militarisation of outer space, could all effectively serve to contain the nuclear threat. They would also represent substantial first steps on the road back to wisdom that is required for human survival.
But the sad truth, as has been voiced by all of you one way or another, is that the escalation of weaponry in the name of greater security for one side or the other has gone on now virtually without abatement for four decades, despite the best efforts of an array of distinguished world leaders and statesmen and even some very limited agreements on arms control.
As has been observed, "Peace has been preserved between the big powers by a hair trigger balance of weapon power which is commonly known as balance of terror; rather than a shared belief in the value of peace itself." Therefore in the current state of East West relations we all perhaps have our doubts about the possibility of the speedy implementation of these proposals.
It is with this sense of anguish that I should like to beg your indulgence this evening in an attempt to search for a new context in which the vital issue of comprehensive security and common survival should be considered.
We must be sure at this critical juncture in the history of mankind that we address the real causes of the arms race and not merely its symptoms. To attempt simply to abolish weapons without changing the underlying attitudes and relationships is as doomed a task as that of Jason when he attempted to slay the warriors who grew from the dragon's teeth on the killing fields of Colchis. For each warrior who was slain, two more instantly appeared.
For each missile removed, after months and years of laborious negotiations, two more will be deployed, unless the basis of relationships has changed from one of mutual suspicion to that of mutual trust.

Of course it may be true that agreed measures of arms control, particularly a nuclear freeze, would in some measure help to create the atmosphere of reciprocal confidence in which further progress would become possible, a sort of upward spiral of virtue.
Yet I believe strongly that we must also consider the psychological dynamics of the arms race, which now threatens the extinction of our civilization and the virtual extermination of our species. Pope John Paul II, speaking in Hiroshima in 1981, said: "In the past it was possible to destroy a village, a town, a region and even a country. Now it is the whole planet that has come under threat. This fact should fully compel everyone to face a basic moral consideration: from now on, it is only through a conscious choice and then deliberate policy that humanity can survive." May I add to that profound statement that the situation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the result of judgements and decisions of persons of no less wisdom and virtue than the leaders and statesmen of the world today.
There are several points of emphasis in the wise words of the Holy Father that we should ponder. He shows how the danger which was once local and partial is now global and total. Yet our feverish quest for security is still partial rather than comprehensive. He talks of choice preceding policy, a lesson to those in Geneva who at times seem to hope that their objectives will emerge more from their discussions and less from their choice - a choice between world extinction and their own possible security through superior nuclear power. He speaks of the survival of humanity as the objective which should unite us all.
Finally, he speaks of a "conscious choice" and that I believe is the key. Perhaps what has been lacking in the crisis of our post-war world is the emergence of a mature consciousness, that this beautiful planet which is our habitat and we, the extraordinary creatures who live upon it and use its blessings, must be protected and must survive. We must learn to see the world as a whole and not just in parts.
Modern technology has shrunk our world to make it easier for us to grasp the totality. We are no longer like our forefathers confined by the limits of our particular village, unfamiliar with the strange ways of the foreigners in the next valley and deeply suspicious of their intentions. Today the world is our global village. Yet our perception, our vision and our institutions have not grown to encompass that great village we all share. It may be humbling to our pride but we have to accept that the civilisation which has made us technological giants has not contributed to our moral and social stature, so that, and excuse my impertinence if I may say, we remain political pygmies.
It is sometimes said by psychologists and other cartographers of the human psyche that a healthy personality in an individual unites and integrates diverse and disparate elements of experience and character. The "desire and pursuit of the whole" is the authentic description of the longing of the psyche. Schizophrenia is the language of unresolved duality. I believe that humanity's greatest suffering today is its moral and political schizophrenia.

Perhaps world wisdom has some of the same characteristics as personal wisdom: the coming together of diverse cultures, religions, races and politics within a recognition and respect for the totality and continuity of the planet Earth and the humans who live here. Life itself is the permanent yet ever-changing ground which unites all things - and it is precious. I do not speak of individual lives which all must end but of the whole system and process of life, of which we are each a part and which we hold as trustees for our children, grandchildren and future generations. What we need is to know, feel and realise what life is in its totality and to recognise that it does not exist only as isolated parts.
It follows from what I have said that what we require is the wisdom to see where our own best interests lie. We should not confuse wisdom with knowledge, any more than we should confuse seeing with looking. Knowledge lacks moral content. Only wisdom contains the moral quality which is of its essence. While science, high and sophisticated technology and the tremendous nuclear power that has been created is the product of knowledge, its use should always remain at the command of wisdom.
By the same token technology should be the servant of humanity, not its master. The first reaction of contemporary man faced by an apparently intractable problem is to reach for a technological solution, what Schumacher called a "technical fix".
It is part of the mythology of our age that science can solve all problems; aspirin for headache, chemicals for crops, space shields to stop enemy rockets. Yet if the problem we are trying to solve is, as it is in the case of the arms race, fundamentally a question of human and political relationships, the indiscriminate application of technology may exacerbate matters rather than provide a solution. Technology-led armament has been the rule for years.
By contrast disarmament will require humanity to assert its primacy over technology. Humanity is neither knowledge nor the advancement in science and technology. It is humility, love, hope, faith, compassion, courage.
The new paradigm I am advancing is that of a strengthened consciousness on the part of millions of people of the threat posed to survival by the burden of weaponry under which the world is groaning. As I have indicated, survival can no longer be partial just as security can no longer be one-sided. Nor is security an absence of war: it is rather the creation of a system of relationships to manage conflict and change for peaceful development and long-term stability.
I am impressed that a connection has begun to be made by individuals who have developed an awareness of the world as a whole, between disarmament, development and security as has also been emphasised in your deliberation of the past two days. This connection sees the world as one fragile, yet potentially bounteous, ecology.
We are dealing with what engineers would identify as a total system. Yet our politics, and the values which underlie and shape them, are still locked in the divisions of an earlier age. We must move on - and it is my contention that it is the cruel necessity of the nuclear age which could be the spur to political evolution and its real progress, that the horror of nuclear suicide squarely faced by masses and their leaders alike could bring the dawning of a new world awareness. We must live together or die together on spaceship Earth.
Sir, this is my proposal. I believe we should look at the extraordinary opportunities for communication that modern technology offers. Twenty-four hours a day the aether (in Greek mythology, the personification of the "upper sky", space and heaven) is humming with news and information, images and pictures, which saturate the world's great cities and reach into the most distant villages. They reach not only the eyes - but the hearts and souls of the people. World fashions can be created, local events can become international news, crises can be watched as they develop, and names unknown even in their own countries can overnight become household words the other side of the globe.
We all know the excesses. Pictures of war can be repeated so often that what was first shocking becomes numbing. Analysis can become a substitute for participation. Presentation shades into propaganda.
Yet I remain optimistic that the communications revolution which has transformed the world's diet of information, entertainment and education since World War II could be made the instrument of creating a sober awareness of the threat to our common future and consciousness of the need to create a new dynamics of common security. Yet I fear that necessary process will not get under way without a focus of commitment, an organising centre, committed to spread the ideas of one world.
That is why, before this distinguished audience this evening, I should like to propose the establishment of a Foundation to create a new organization which is global in scope and universal in purpose. I shall call it, for your consideration although you may well be able to improve on my first thoughts, The Centre for Comprehensive Security and Common Survival.
The new Centre would be dedicated to spreading one simple truth around our global village: our trusteeship rather than ownership of the earth; the interdependence of all human people, whatever their nation, faith or ideology; the imminent threat of the extinction of life and the destruction of our shared habitat; the need for a new basis of cooperative relationships between governments and people; and most centrally of all, what Palme called an idea of "common security" and what we may call ''comprehensive security''.
Such a Centre would be more about information, insight, human contact and improved relationships and not be primarily about hardware, weapons systems and military technology. These are all products of knowledge and as I said earlier, knowledge is devoid of moral content. The main concern of the Centre would be
- to transcend all boundaries - geographical, cultural, political, ideological, social or economic, and, using the extraordinary capacity of modern technology, reach and touch the largest number of people, East and West, North and South, common people or people who command power, leaders or led, all alike
- to bring to the individual and collective realisation the meaning of comprehensive security and the imperative of common survival in an effort to make it the belief and a part of the individual and collective psyche
- to bridge the gap between knowledge of science and technology on the one hand and wisdom of which morality is an essential content on the other hand
- to create a new ecology for human survival
- to help create a global mind in the people

The Centre would not be linked to or in opposition to any creed, ideology or power structure nor would it be there to advise. On the contrary it would attempt to represent and speak for all humanity. Although I believe it should be large in its scope and aims, it would not be setting up in competition with television, motion pictures, radio networks or publishers but rather working closely with them, and with their cooperation.
I have implied that the Centre should be global in its scope and have the capacity to achieve its purpose. Let me spell that out. I want to see US$500 million raised as the corpus of the Foundation to give the world its own powerful voice. This may possibly be increased to $1 billion in course of time. Even then, as I am sure you know, such a sum would amount to less than one eighth of 1 % of the amount spent every year on armaments by Governments of the world.
Here, may I request you to join with me in a commitment to raise this sum, which on the face of it may appear to be a difficult task. But it is my honest belief that given your involvement, prestige, credibility, commitment and determination and the purpose, which is no less than human survival, it should be possible to raise this amount.
Lest you think this is an idea only, let me assure you of my deep personal commitment. If you join the commitment I would ensure that the Third World Foundation is prepared to make an investment of $5 million every year for a period of ten years.
You may note I say investment - that is perhaps because I think like a banker as well I hope as a citizen of the world - I believe such a Centre would be an investment in the truest sense of the wor , that t e return from building the awareness and relationships upon which a stable system of comprehensive security rested would be beyond the dreams of any investment banker. It could represent the beginning of an era in which the wealth created by man's ingenuity and enterprise might be used for his very survival.
How practical is this idea? Well even though my head may be in the stars, my feet are still on the ground. I believe such a Centre is not only desirable but feasible - it is necessary, it is urgent, it is possible. The alternative to building a new awareness, and finding the collective wisdom to define security so that it includes all mankind, is to institutionalise dualism on earth and in the heavens so that even if we escape into the next century it will be as fugitives living each day on the knife-edge of disaster.
The ultimate impracticality is to do nothing in the face of the threat which confronts our world. Those of us who share a sense of history and a lively hope for the future know what a tragic paradox it would be that at the very moment man's genius had potentially liberated him from drudgery, from his terrestrial confines and from his own limited senses, he should destroy himself and his eternal home because he could not manage his aggression and insecurity.
I am reminded of those moving lines of O'Shaugnessy "Would man but wake from out his haunted sleep Earth might be fair and all men glad and wise"
We must not be sleepwalkers. To survive in the nuclear age means first waking up, then blowing away the nightmare so that we can get on with our real business, the business of living. That is the challenge we must accept.