Harry Ransom CenterThe University of Texas at Austin

Search Collections

Nobel Prize Winners
1/11/58

In this special telecast from the American Nobel Anniversary Committee Dinner and Forum at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York, Dr. Linus Pauling, Pearl S. Buck, Clarence Pickett, and Sir John Boyd Orr talk about peace in a world threatened by war.

Watch Video



Transcript
THE MIKE WALLACE INTERVIEW
Guest: Nobel Prize Winners
1/11/58

WALLACE: Good evening, I'm Mike Wallace. Tonight we'll tackle the issues of war and peace with a group of Nobel Prize Winners from around the world. This is a special telecast from the American Nobel Anniversary Committee Dinner and Forum at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York where some four hundred world statesmen and Nobel Prize Winners have gathered to talk about peace in a world threatened by war.

Because my cigarette sponsor, Philip Morris Incorporated believes peace is of direct personal importance to each of us, you and me and every man, and that in a Democracy each of us shares in maintaining it, they have asked me to devote the full time they've purchased this evening to bringing you this special interview uninterrupted. My thanks to Philip Morris Incorporated, the makers of Philip Morris, Parliament and Marlboro Cigarettes.........

And now to our story.....we have several guests tonight. You may not have heard of some of them because with one exception they're not politicians who capture newspaper headlines. They're not generals or admirals and they are not titans of industry. But they have been recognized as among the greatest minds in the world. They speak for peace with the authority of Nobel Prize Winners at a time when the obstacles in the path of peace seem insurmountable. First, one of those problems as seen by Doctor Linus Pauling, winner of the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1954.

PAULING: I dread any national policy that demands peace through ever increasing strength, peace through ever increasing power of destruction. With this policy followed by two great nations, the inevitable end will be the end of civilization. Why do we not start now to replace power, often irrational power, by reason? Why do we not make international agreements? I am sure that effective, just international agreements can be made. I think I know why they haven't been made. The national leaders haven't wanted badly enough to make them.

You know the world has been changing very rapidly. It is time for our national leaders, diplomats to come out of the Nineteenth Century of power politics into the real world of the Twentieth Century where power has ruled itself out. We need to put reason, morality, justice in their prime place, their proper place of principle importance in the solution of world problems.

WALLACE: Next Pearl Buck, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1938.

BUCK: The basic weakness in our national defense today is not in military matters or even in the realm of science. It is in human relations and especially in race prejudice. Three-fourths of the world is not white. How can we do our part to enable people of every color to live together in equality and therefore in peace? We must, time is no longer on our side.

WALLACE: And next, Clarence Pickett, Executive Secretary Emeritus of the American Friends Service Committee which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947.

PICKETT: If we are not to be destroyed by guided missiles in the hands of mis¬guided men, we must take the vital first step toward peace, but it would seem to me that our statesmen are blocking that first step by forever insisting that Russia prove her good faith ahead of time by deeds. Is it not equally in Russia's interest to avoid world catastrophe?

WALLACE: We've just heard from people who speak far peace in a world threatened by war. Now we're going to present these and other issues to the Nobel Prize Winner for Peace back in 1949, the Scotsman, Lord John Boyd Orr. Sir John is a scientist, a humanitarian, a European with fresh, different and challenging opinions of the world's problems. At the age of seventy-seven, he is an independent and courageous spokesman for peace.

Sir John, first of all let me ask you this, before we tackle the specific issues that our three prize winners have brought up, isn't it just possible, sir, that the world now faces problems so myriad and so irreconcilable that despite all the talk and all the conferences and all the good will, these problems can be solved only by force, by force alone?

ORR: Sorry I can't agree with you. I'm glad I can't agree with you. There are these great obstacles to peace but they can be solved and will be solved. Why do I say that?

Did the President, President Truman once said "The day the people of the world demand peace, there'll be no war." Today the people of the world are demanding peace. My country, France, Russia and everybody else. I'm sure Russia wants it. Go into an economic conference where we've agreed not to discuss politics. We couldn't get through with cars through the mob of people clamoring at the windows and yelling. I asked, what are they yelling? They said, "Do you bring peace?"

WALLACE: So the people of the world want peace?

ORR: The people of the world want peace.....

WALLACE: But their their leaders, sir......

ORR: The people of the world will get peace..

WALLACE: Will they get it from their leaders? Let me put it to you this way. What we must do the theme of this forum here tonight is "Let Us Reason Together" but what good is reasoning when you're dealing not merely with differences of opinion but with opposing self-interests? For instance, what's good for France is not necessarily good for Algeria. What's good for Great Britain is not necessarily good for Cypress.

What's good for Nationalist China is certainly not good for Red China, and so clear on around the globe we have people at each other's throats because of what would seem to be irreconcilable conflicts. Now hasn't history proved that force and force alone, force and not reason is the final arbiter?

ORR: No, because the people of the world, including the governments of the world, are beginning to realize that they can't use force without committing suicide. Today the position is totally different from what it was in the First World War when you recruited men to go and fight, you see.

WALLACE: Well I'm not I'm not asking you.....

ORR: But today if a war comes, believe me, the generals and the politicians are likely to be killed as the soldiers.....

WALLACE: uhmmmm.....

ORR: .....and the people of the world that they might lose faith and they will force governments ultimately to take steps for peace.

WALLACE: Do you think that it's impossible to wage a small war today, Sir John?

ORR: The danger of a small war is that it will break out into a large war.

WALLACE: The danger of a small war is of course that it will break out into a large war but have we not had it proved to us over the past few years that small battles can take place but the deterrent power of one strong power having the Hydrogen Bomb and the other strong power having the same thing keeps an all out war from coming to pass?

ORR: Yes, because both are afraid to use the Hydrogen Bomb, but for small wars, United Nations has evolved something new and something terribly important, that's a World Police Force. A World Police Force which would stop brush wars.

WALLACE: And...if I'm not mistaken the United Nations Emergency Force is not even being properly supported by some of the very countries which formed that United Nations Emergency Force.

ORR: Of course it isn't, but the world police force is one of the most important steps in the world today. Men drawn from all countries whose allegiance is to the people of the world, and they are prepared to fight if need be for any disturbance of peace.

WALLACE: Sir John, let's talk about the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States. Our President, President Eisenhower, said last month the Soviet state daily increases its power and its rulers make clear their purpose to use that power to dominate the world. Do you doubt that?

ORR: I doubt whether Soviet Russia is so stupid as to attempt to dominate the world by war. Their object is to by propaganda get people to believe their system is better than the American or the British system, you see, by propaganda. But that is not dominating the world by war.

WALLACE: Well, do you, do you believe that the United States, that the free world versus the unfree world, should retain its power, should continue to build up armaments in order to properly sit down at a table and negotiate with the Russians?

ORR: I believe that neither side would be wise to abolish their defense against an attack by the other side, nor will they. But I believe that by getting together to discuss ways of peace they will gradually begin disarmament.

WALLACE: Well, let's see if anything can be done practically. Now Dr. Linus Pauling said just a few moments ago that generally speaking both Russia and the United States pay lip service to a ban on nuclear tests. But he says that he doesn't think the heads of state have sufficient desire really to ban those tests. What do you think about that charge?

ORR: I think they haven't sufficient desire to ban the tests, but I think both sides in their own intelligent self-interest would refrain from using nuclear weapons, which would cause themselves to commit suicide.

WALLACE: Do you believe these tests should be stopped right now?

ORR: If possible, but can you expect America to stop the tests when Russia is going ahead with the Sputnik and intercontinental missiles.

WALLACE: America says no, you agree with it?

ORR: No, I agree with America.

WALLACE: You agree with America?

ORR: But Russia will know quite well, that putting up the Sputnik; getting intercontinental missile, was a piece of luck. If they did it, America can do it and will do it shortly you see, and therefore Russia can't depend upon that, nor can America depend on it if they get a lead.

WALLACE: At the same time when the President was making his State of the Union Message, Sir John, Soviet Premier Bulganin proposed a top level meeting among 19 countries of the East and West to begin to tackle specific world issues. Yesterday John Foster Dulles answered. He said that the Russians would have to show their good faith by deeds, before the United States would consider a summit conference. He suggested that Russia first consent to the reunification of Germany. Now you've heard Dr. Clarence Pickett urge that we agree to a summit conference without demanding that the Soviet Union demonstrate their good faith by deeds. What do you think?

ORR: I think to go to a conference and say we don't believe you, to go to a conference and say before we negotiate with you, here's something you must do, which you know they will never accept, is to close the door, so to speak.

WALLACE: Then you feel that we must,-that that Dulles is wrong and that the attitude of the United States is wrong?

ORR: I think so. Dulles is entirely wrong. If you go to a conference you go with a complete open mind with no pre-conceived idea of saying that you must agree to this or else you won't agree to peace.

WALLACE: Well, let's turn here to the issue tackled by Pearl Buck. Our relations with the colored peoples of the world in Asia, and Africa; as she points out, three-fourths-of the world is not white. Do you think that the failure to admit Red China to the United Nations, the United States failure to recognize Red China, has been a stumbling block in the path of peace?

ORR: Certainly. You don't recognize Red China -- you won't allow her to trade with you, what happens you drive her into the arms of Russia. You surround her with bombing stations all around and some of your scientists and people make most unfortunate remarks about dusting the air out of China, and so on. You see, what is the position of China? They're developing there at a much faster rate than Russia ever did.

British people that I've consulted in Shanghai, Hong-Kong, and other places believe within 30 or 40 years, China with a fourth of the population of the world with enormous natural resources, will be the most powerful nation industrially and militarily in the world. The time to make peace with China is now. What is my country doing? They've sent a minister to Red China to open up negotiations for increased trade. As a matter of fact if you're going to cut us off from that and insisting to Russia the unification, of Germany, no trade with Red China, we find that the rest of the world is gone and America is left in the lurch. America is isolating herself from public opinion throughout the world.

WALLACE: Well, is it possible sir, is this what you are saying, is this what these people are saying, we Americans regard ourselves as a peace-loving people...I think that you will agree that we are a peace-loving people.

ORR: The people of America certainly are.

WALLACE: Yet these three Nobel prize winners have pointed out one, two, three reasons why perhaps America could be accused of dragging her feet toward the path to peace. Do you agree?

ORR: With justice they can be accused of it.

WALLACE: With justice America can be accused.

ORR: But mind you, . . . that doesn't get away from the fact that the American people are the most generous people in the world, that America has a great idealism shown after the First World War and during the Second World War, and they've always had great ideals --can't run away from them.

WALLACE: Let's come back to the Red China instant -- uh.. John Foster Dulles put it this way last July, he says that, "Trade with Communist China is used to develop a formidable military establishment and a heavy industry to support it," and he added that, "America at least, ought not to build up the military power of its potential enemy." What's your reaction to that sir?

ORR: My reaction to that is that China is doing it in any case. I've been to China, I’ve seen their work. They say, "Ah..we will not allow you to import penicillin - in case it might save the lives of children to grow up to be soldiers." To such lengths have we got to go to defend our Christian civilization? What happens? You get China establishes it own market and its own factories for penicillin, and is now developing a place for penicillin in Southeast Asia.

You say..ah..we will not allow you to..uh..import railway engines. In 1956 they made 184 railway engines starting from scratch. You say..ah..we will not allow you to make airplanes in case you should fight us. A Japanese General recently visiting China reports that he was there and saw their planes, 4,000 of them. Better than the Russian MIG-17. You can't stop China...you can't stop her. Why not make peace with China now and offer China friendship and help to develop a peaceful civilization.

WALLACE: Ambassador George Kennan has suggested that the battle of power, the battle for power ten years from now may not be necessarily between the United States and Russia, but rather between Soviet Russia and Red China. What's your reaction to that?

ORR: My reaction to that is this. Red China is dependent upon Russia just now for the import of certain things, but she is paying for them. With American bombing stations all around her seacoast, America's got to keep...China's got to keep close to Russia, but she hasn't got the Hydrogen Bomb yet. But in ten years China will have the Hydrogen Bomb, and believe me China will take not back chat from either Russia or from America.

WALLACE: Let's look at a related issue, Sir John. Back in 1947 the London Times quoted you as saying this, you said, "Races which have been ruled by the whites are now becoming as dynamic as the white race. The day of great empires ruled by European nations is finished." In view of this, what do you think France should do in Algeria? Should France grant independence with all due haste or try to protect its financial interests and French Nationals to the bitter end?

ORR: France is in a very difficult position in Algeria. At last reports of the population, there are. French born in Algeria and have a right to settle in Algeria, but I believe that the only way to peace there is to regard the Algerians as equal with the French, whatever their color is, and to get the whole world to engage in the scheme that I'm suggesting to raise the standard of living of the Algerians. Why do they revolt? Not because they don't wish to be friends. The Algerians are in the revolt because of their poverty.

WALLACE: Sir John you made that statement, the plan that you suggested to the audience here at the Waldorf Astoria, but the television audience has not heard your plan, your ten percent plan. I wonder if you would outline it for us here and now.

ORR: Well, my plan is this. You can't go on making armaments without the whole thing blowing up to a complete destruction. The road to peace is through disarmament, but you can't have disarmament unless you've something else to keep the wheels of industry turning. In other words, you can't have peace in vacuum. A mere negative peace is no peace, you've got to have a positive, dynamic peace. That's what I suggest. Let Russia and America agree that they'll cut their budgets by ten percent and call on all other nations to do the same.

WALLACE: Cut their military budgets.

ORR: The military budgets, yes. The defense budgets - ten percent. Retain five percent to relieve intolerable burden of taxation which has made my country bankrupt. Put the other five percent into an international fund under UN to be administered by businessmen to be applied to develop the enormous potential resource of the world to put an end to poverty in Algeria, to prevent the hunger and poverty and disease. By doing that they can then begin to disarm gradually, and the economics will work and provide the means and provide the food and eliminating disease.

Furthermore, here is the important part by beginning to get something that America and Russia and all the nations you see, have go to cooperate in, for the mutual benefit on the road to peace. You must begin to cooperate, there is a place to cooperate for the good of America, the good of Russia, the good of Britain and the good of the hungry countries.

WALLACE: You were talking of freedom for colonials. There is just as great a problem, and that is the satellite countries of eastern Europe, controlled by Soviet Russia. Millions of Hungarians, for instance, living without freedom, under a puppet Government, the threat of Soviet tanks there. What should we do about it? Should we of the Free World, be content to sit back and hope again for an uprising? Should we help, should that uprising come?

ORR: I don't think we should. We should adopt the plan now, put forward first by Anthony Eden and then put forward by Poland of a neutral belt in Europe. Let the Russians withdraw from Eastern China, Poland and Czechoslovakia, let the West withdraw from Western Germany, disengage themselves, keep so many miles apart, and then you can unify Germany if you like. But it must be unified that they will not join with NATO and will not join with Russia. A neutral belt. This is very definitely a stride forward. Who was it made by? Anthony Eden.

WALLACE: Tell me this, sir. This final question that I shall put to you obviously enters the realm of pure speculation, but I would like for you to tell us. Do you believe in the good faith of the Russians, in their desire to negotiate for peace?

ORR: I wouldn't believe in the good faith of any foreign office even my own. Czechoslovakia that believed in the good faith of France and Britain to save it, sold them down the river. I'm only speaking against my own country. The self-interest, the selfish national interest of countries is what decides their motives until they have wisdom to begin to see that they can't have a selfish interest that is not in the interest of the whole people of the world.

WALLACE: And we have to develop that selfish interest in the interest of the people of the whole world.

ORR: An intelligent self-interest, intelligent self-interest to make them realize what all the nations want is peace and prosperity.

WALLACE: Lord John Boyd-Orr, I thank you for giving us your views here tonight and for flying here solely for this occasion from your native Scotland Incidentally, I understand when you return your doctors will have something to say about, because I understand that just a couple of weeks ago at the age of seventy-seven you underwent major surgery and got out of a hospital bed against Doctor's Orders long before you should have to come here tonight. I thank you and God speed, Sir.

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: We'll turn now for a summation on the issues of War and Peace to the Canadian Statesman, Lester Pearson, winner of the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize.

PEARSON: I have listened to this discussion with very great interest, and my first feeling is that Lord Boyd-Orr will feel that he has also gone undergone major surgery this evening. The questions, which were provocative, did produce, of course, and they were meant to, a point of view, and that point of view was given, I thought, very impressively and sincerely, but it was a point of view.

The questioner started off by saying, asking the question whether these problems could only be solved by force, and I wondered how often in history problems have really been finally and satisfactorily solved by military force. And if that is true of history, how can problems today be solved by military force when the force that we now have is of such a character that we dare not use it. Of course, there are other kinds of force, and we shouldn't forget that, and this occurred to me as I was listening.

There is Economic Force and there is Economic Conflict, there is Moral Force and there is the force of an Idea. Perhaps, without sacrificing our defensive military strength, because I happen to feel we must keep that, we should do more to strengthen the other kinds of force: Economic, Moral and Idea Force, and put those forces to work for us in what we call the free world. It was said by one of the speakers at the beginning that we will not get peace through strength. I think that is perfectly true, but in the world of today, unfortunately, we will not be able to get the kind of peace we want without strength.

So as I see it, what we have to do is maintain our Defensive Strength and then go to work to try to build up these other forms of strength which by using, we may get a decent kind of peace. And as I see it also, the first step toward that end, and it was mentioned by more than one speaker tonight, is to put the resources of Diplomacy at work so that without forfeiting our strength we will find a better foundation for Peace than military strength, and if we can't do that, then we're doomed.

But I think we can do that and I think our meeting tonight has given us some hope that we will be able to. What we have to do is to canalize the good will and the good ideas that we heard tonight into political action based on those good ideas and carry out that good will.

(APPLAUSE)

WALLACE: Thank you Mr. Pearson. Men of good will have gathered like this before in history to talk about Peace. Rarely have their words been heeded. If we fail to listen this time, civilization as we know it, may never again have the chance to sit down and reason together. Next week we go after the story of a Communist leader who dealt the American Communist Party a demoralizing blow by quitting Communism only yesterday.

He is John Gates, former Editor of the Daily Worker and a Communist Leader for 27 years. If you are curious to know why John Gates quit the Communist Party at a time when Communism is riding high on the prestige of the Sputnik, if you want to hear what kind of a life a Communist Boss leads in America, and about his disillusionment, what he may know about Communist subversion and what he can tell us about the die-hard Reds who remain in the American Communist Party, we'll go after those stories next week.

WALLACE: Our program tonight was presented in the public interest. We have been privileged to bring you this special uninterrupted half-hour through the courtesy of our sponsors, who requested that we forgo our usual commercial time for this purpose. For Philip Morris, Parliament and Marlboro Cigarettes, Mike Wallace, good night.