Other Events, deaths, births, of 16 Oct
On a 16 October:
1998 The Nobel Peace Prize for 1998 to Hume and Trimble         ^top^
      The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 1998 to John Hume and David Trimble for their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. Over the past thirty years, the national, religious and social conflict in Northern Ireland has cost over 3,500 people their lives. John Hume has throughout been the clearest and most consistent of Northern Ireland's political leaders in his work for a peaceful solution. The foundations of the peace agreement signed on Good Friday 1998 reflect principles which he has stood for. As the leader of the traditionally predominant party in Northern Ireland, David Trimble showed great political courage when, at a critical stage of the process, he advocated solutions which led to the peace agreement. As the head of the Northern Ireland government, he has taken the first steps towards building up the mutual confidence on which a lasting peace must be based. The Norwegian Nobel Committee also wishes to emphasise the importance of the positive contributions to the peace process made by other Northern Irish leaders, and by the governments of Great Britain, Ireland, and the United States. The Norwegian Nobel Committee expresses the hope that the foundations which have now been laid will not only lead to lasting peace in Northern Ireland, but also serve to inspire peaceful solutions to other religious, ethnic and national conflicts around the world.

      John Hume and David Trimble, the leaders of Northern Ireland's two main political parties, won the Nobel Peace Prize today for their efforts to end the sectarian violence that plagued the British province for three decades, reports AP. Hume, 61, head of the predominantly Roman Catholic Social Democratic and Labour Party, and Trimble, 54, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, were cited by the Norwegian Nobel Committee for work toward ending "the national religious and social conflict in Northern Ireland that has cost over 3,500 people their lives." Their work culminated in a peace agreement signed this spring. "John Hume has throughout been the clearest and most consistent of Northern Ireland's political leaders in his work for a peaceful solution," the committee said in its citation. "As the leader of the traditionally predominant party in Northern Ireland, David Trimble showed great political courage when, at a critical stage in the process, he advocated solutions which led to the peace agreement," the citation said. The committee also noted that the peace agreement that was signed in April was the work of other Northern Ireland political leaders, as well as the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and Ireland. In the days leading up to prize, the Norwegian news media largely assumed that an award to Northern Ireland would also include Gerry Adams, leader of Sein Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army. At his news conference, Norwegian Nobel Committee head Francis Sejersted was asked if the committee had shunned Adams because of the IRA's terrorist history. He refused to discuss the deliberations of the committee. "We don't shy away from anyone. We just try to find the most appropriate laureates," Sejersted said. "I can only repeat that many people have contributed to this process, not in the least Gerry Adams." The prize of 7.6 million Swedish kronor (963,000 dollars) will be divided equally between Hume and Trimble. At a news conference shortly after prize announcement Hume said: "Well as you would expect, I am very deeply honoured to have received this award today, but I see it not as an award for myself but as a very powerful international approval of the peace process in Northern Ireland and a very strong international approval of the peace for all the people of Northern Ireland." In Denver early today, where Trimble was visiting as part of an 11-city North American tour aimed at promoting investment in the British province, aides refused to wake him for comment, saying he would make a statement later in the day. It was the second time the Nobel committee sought to encourage peace in Northern Ireland. The 1976 prize went to Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan of Northern Ireland for their peace efforts in founding the International Peace People group, which later fizzled. "We did hope it would have more of an effect than it did," said Sejersted. But he said that just illustrated what a long and complicated process seeking peace in Northern Ireland has been. Sejersted said the committee knows that there is a risk of setbacks and renewed violence even after the Belfast peace accords were signed in April. But "it indicates that the process is going in on the right track, and that there is reason for optimism," the chairman said. "We wanted to give it a push." British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Irish counterpart Bertie Ahern, both mentioned a possible winners of this year's peace prize, immediately praised the decision. "There could be no more worthy winners of the Nobel Peace Prize than David Trimble and John Hume," said Blair in London. "This is a recognition of their courage and their qualities of leadership." Ahern called it "a deserved tribute to two of the principal architects" of the peace agreement. The peace prize was the last of the six Nobel awards to be named this year. The prizes are presented on December 10, the anniversary of the death of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite who established the prizes in his will.
1986 Nobel Prize in Literature to Wole Soyinka         ^top^
      This year's Nobel Prize in literature goes to an African writer, Wole Soyinka from Nigeria. Now in his early fifties, he has a large and richly varied literary production behind him and is in his prime as an author. His background, upbringing and education have given him unusual conditions for a literary career. He has his roots in the Yoruba people's myths, rites and cultural patterns, which in their turn have historical links to the Mediterranean region. Through his education in his native land and in Europe he has also acquired deep familiarity with western culture. His collection of essays Myth, Literature and the African World make for clarifying and enriching reading. The learning that the professor of literary science bears with him is in no way an encumbrance to his literary works. They are vivid, often harrowing, but are also marked by en evocative, poetically intensified diction.
       Soyinka has been characterized as one of he finest poetical playwrights that have written in English. Among his plays special mention can be made of A Dance of the Forests and Death and The King's Horseman. The former is a kind of African Midsummer Night's Dream with spirits, ghosts and gods. There is a distinct link here to the indigenous ritual drama and to the Elizabethan drama. A key figure in Soyinka, the god Ogun, also appears in the play. He is both creator and destroyer and as Soyinka sees him has traits that lead one's thoughts to the Dionysian, the Apollonian and the Promethean in European tradition. Death and the King's Horseman is in the nature of an antique tragedy with the cultic sacrificial death as theme. The relationship between the unborn, the living and the dead, to which Soyinka reverts several times in his works, is fashioned here with very strong effect. Soyinka confirms his position as a centre of force in drama. In a play such as A Play of Giants we find another side to Soyinka. It is a dark farce, an aggressive writer's thrust in the service of common sense. The introductory piece of prose is a caustic summing up of Africa's agony. It has already been mentioned that Soyinka's plays have strong poetical elements. In several collections of poems he has also appeared as a poet of great distinction. One of the highlights is Idanre, and Other Poems, in which a central theme is the very thing that Ogun represents: the conflict, perhaps the union, between destruction and creation. The collection of poems A Shuttle in the Crypt shows real moral stature. The poems were written during the writer's two years in prison, to which he was sent because of his attitude in his country's civil war. They are poems about mental survival, human contact, anger and forgiveness. The same experiences lie behind his prose work The Man Died: Prison Notes, which in itself is a literary work of the first rank. Linguistically too Soyinka stands out as excellent. He possesses a prolific store of words and expressions which he exploits to the full in witty dialogue, in satire and grotesquery, in quiet poetry and essays of sparkling vitality. Wole Soyinka's writing is full of life and urgency. For all its complexity it is at the same time energetically coherent.
1986 Nobel Prize in Economics to James Buchanan.         ^top^
"for his development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making"

      The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the1986 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to Professor James McGill Buchanan, George Mason University, Virginia, for his development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making.
      This year's Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to James M. Buchanan for his contributions to the theory of political decision-making and public economics. Traditional economic theory explains in great detail how consumers and entrepreneurs make decisions regarding purchase of goods, choice of work, production, investments, etc. In a series of studies, Buchanan has developed a corresponding theory of decision-making in the public sector. This comprehensive theoretical formulation which goes under the name, "The New Political Economy" or "Public Choice", and lies on the boundary between economics and political science and has some of its origins in the work of the Swedish economist Knut Wicksell. Buchanan's contribution is that he has transferred the concept of gain derived from mutual exchange between individuals to the realm of political decision-making. The political process thus becomes a means of cooperation aimed at achieving reciprocal advantages. But the result of this process depends on "rules of the game", i.e., the constitution in a broad sense. This in turn emhasizes the vital importance of the formulation of constitutional rules and the possibility of constitutional reforms. According to Buchanan, it is often futile to advise politicians or influence the outcome of specfic issues. In a given system of rules, the outcome is to a large extent detemined by etablished political constellations. A relevant example is that those who would like to correct individual tariffs should concentrate instead on the fundamental rules of international trade, such as GATT regulations. For nearly forty years, James M. Buchanan has devoted himself to development of the contractual and constitutional bases for the theory of economic and political decision-making. In so doing, he has become the leading researcher in the field which has come to be known as "public choice theory". For a long time, traditional economics lacked an independent theory of political decision-making. Modern welfare theory often relied on the premise that public authorities could apply relatively mechanical methods to correct different types of so-called market failures. Stabilization policy theory - regardless of whether it was Keynesian or monetarist appeared to assume that political authorities endeavored to achieve certain macroeconomic or socioeconomic goals regarding employment, inflation or growth rates. Buchanan and others in the public choice school have not accepted this simplified view of political life. Instead, they have sought explanations for political behavior that resemble those used to analyze behavior on markets. Individuals who behave selfishly on markets can hardly behave wholly altruistically in political life. This results in analyses which indicate that political parties or authorities that to at least some extent act out of self-interest, will try to obtain as many votes as possible in order to reach positions of power or receive large budget allocations. This type of analyses has become universal in recent years, and is perhaps the most widely known aspect of public choice theory. Principles of Unanimity Buchanan has extended the parallels between economic and political decision-making even further. Market behavior is based primarily on voluntary agreements and the exchange of goods and services which give rise to mutual advantages for the agents in market transactions. A prerequisite of the market system, however, is the establishment of a legal system that protects ownership rights and the realization of contractual agrements. The political system may also be regarded as a sytem based on voluntary agreements. Beginning with Knut Wicksell's early analysis of the relation between public expenditures and taxes, Buchanan has formulated a theory of the public sector and political decision-making based on the principle of unanimity. As a result, decisions concerning the dimensioning and financing of collective efforts may be regarded as the outcome of voluntary agreements among citizens. Every citizen would thus in theory receive a welfare gain if the value, to him, of collective measures exceeds what he must forego in the form of taxes. In this perspective the political process becomes primarily a way of cooperating to achieve mutual advantages - and not a means for redistributing resources among individuals. Owing to the high costs of arriving at decisions, however, the unanimity principle is difficult to apply in practice. The costs of making decisions based on a high degree of mutual agreement have to be weighed against the costs an individual faces when a majority decision goes against him. It thus becomes imperative to distinguish between fundamental decisions concerning the rules which govern future decisions on all kinds of issues and the decisions themselves. Once constitutional rules are adopted, the outcome on concrete issues is often given by the internal dynamics of the political system. Thus the design of constitutional rules and the possibility of constitutional reforms take on great importance. Attempts to advise paliticians or affect the outcome of specific issues are often futile; for any given rule system, the outcome is determined largely by prevailing political constellations. The Importance of Fixed Rules Buchanan's foremost achievement is that he has consistently and tenaciously emphasized the significance of fundamental rules and applied the concept of the political system as an exchange process for the achievement of mutual advantages. He has used his method with great success in the analysis of many scecific problems and issues. Long before large budget deficits arose, for example, he showed how debt financing dissolves the relation between expenditures and taxes in the decision-making process. Developments over the last few decades have confirmed Buchanan's realistic view of the scope of economic policy and the importance of continuously reconsidering fundamental rules of the game, while retaining stable rules. Economists now working in the area of stabilisation policy are much more interested in fixed rules than they were a few decades ago when "fine tuning" was in fashion. Earmarked taxes and qualified majority as methods of achieving better correspondence between public expenditures and taxes are now considerably more topical questions than they were twenty years ago when attempts were made to restrict the political administrative decision-making process as little as possible. Important Publications Buchanan's best-known work is probably Calculus of Consent (1962; written in collaboration with his colleague, Gordon Tullock). Different applications are given in, e.g., Public Finance in a Democratic Process (1966), and The Demand and Supply of Public Goods (1968). Buchanan's visionary approach is presented in The Limits of Liberty (1975) and Freedom in Constitutional Contract: Perspectives of a Political Economist (1977). In more recent works, Buchanan has continued his analysis of the tax state and systems of rules in The Power to Tax (1980; with G. Brennan) and The Reason of Rules (1985; with G. Brennan). In addition to these monographs, Buchanan has published numerous articles in scientific journals; collections have appeared in What Should Economists Do? (1979) and Liberty, Market and State (1986).
1985 Nobel Prize in Physics to Klaus von Klitzing.         ^top^
      The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has decided to award the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1985 to Professor Klaus von Klitzing, Max-Planck-Institute for Solid State Research, Stuttgart, Federal Republic of Germany, for the discovery of the quantized Hall effect.

      When an electric current passes through a metal strip there is normally no difference in potential across the strip if measured perpendicularly to the current. If however a magnetic field is applied perpendicularly to the plane of the strip, the electrons are deflected towards one edge and a potential difference is created across the strip. This phenomenon, termed the Hall effect, was discovered more than a hundred years ago by the American physicist E.H. Hall. In common metals and semiconductors, the effect has now been thoroughly studied and is well understood. Entirely new phenomena appear when the Hall effect is studied in twodimensional electron systems, in which the electrons are forced to move in an extremely thin surface layer between for example a metal and a semiconductor. Two-dimensional systems do not occur naturally, but, using advanced technology and production techniques developed within semiconductor electronics, it has become possible to produce them. For the last ten years there has been reason to suspect that, in two-dimensional systems, what is called Hall conductivity does not vary evenly, but changes "step-wise" when the applied magnetic field is changed. The steps should appear at conductivity values representing an integral number multiplied by a natural constant of fundamental physical importance. The conductivity is then said to be quantised. It was not expected, however, that the quantisation rule would apply with a high accuracy. It therefore came as a great surprise when in the spring of 1980 von Klitzing showed experimentally that the Hall conductivity exhibits step-like plateaux which follow this rule with exceptionally high accuracy, deviating from an integral number by less than 0.000 000 1. Von Klitzing has through his experiment shown that the quantised Hall effect has fundamental implications for physics. His discovery has opened up a new research field of great importance and relevance. Because of the extremely high precision in the quantised Hall effect, it may be used as a standard of electrical resistance. Secondly, it affords a new possibility of measuring the earlier-mentioned constant, which is of great importance in, for example, the fields of atomic and particle physics. These two possibilities in measurement technique are of the greatest importance, and have been studied in many laboratories all over the world during the five years since von Klitzing's experiment. Of equally great interest is that we are dealing here with a new phenomenon in quantum physics, and one whose characteristics are still only partially understood.

The Movement of Electrons in Magnetic Fields

      Under the influence of a magnetic field an electron in a vacuum follows a spiral trajectory with the axis of the spiral in the direction of the magnetic field. In the plane perpendicular to the field, the electron moves in a circle. In a metal or a semiconductor, the electron tends to move along a more complicated closed trajectory, but with fairly strong magnetic fields and at normal temperatures this ordered movement is fragmented by collisions. At extremely low temperatures (a few degrees above absolute zero) and with extremely strong magnetic fields, the effect of collisions is suppressed and the electrons are again forced into ordered movement. Under these extreme conditions the classical theory does not apply: the movement becomes quantised, which means that the energy can only assume certain definite values, termed Landau levels after the Russian physicist L. Landau (Nobel prizewinner in 1962) who developed the theory of the effect as early as 1930.
Two-dimensional Electron Systems
      Two-dimensional material systems do not occur naturally. Under special circumstances, however, certain systems can behave as if they were two-dimensional - but only within very limited energy intervals and temperature ranges. The first to demonstrate this possibility theoretically was J.R. Schrieffer (Nobel prizewinner in 1972). In work appearing in 1957 he showed that in a surface layer between metal and semiconductor electrons can be made to move along the surface but not perpendicular to it. Eleven years later a research team at IBM showed that this idea could be realised experimentally. The study of two-dimensional systems developed rapidly during the years that have followed. These experiments used samples employing a specially designed transistor, a so called MOSFET (Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor). Other types of artificial samples - heterostructures - have subsequently been used, in which the samples have been developed using molecular beams. It should also be mentioned that advances in technology and production methods within semiconductor electronics have played a crucial role in the study of two-dimensional electron systems, and were a precondition for the discovery of the quantised Hall effect.
The Quantised Hall Effect
      An important step in the direction of the experimental discovery was taken in a theoretical study by the Japanese physicist T. Ando. Together with his co-workers he calculated that conductivity could at special points assume values that are integer multiples of e2 /h, where e is the electron charge and h is Planck's constant. It could scarcely be expected, however, that the theory would apply with great accuracy. During the years 1975 to 1981 many Japanese researchers published experimental papers dealing with Hall conductivity. They obtained results corresponding to Ando's at special points, but they made no attempt to determine the accuracy. Nor was their method specially suitable for achieving great accuracy. A considerably better method was developed in 1978 by Th. Englert and K. von Klitzing. Their experimental curve exhibits well defined plateaux, but the authors did not comment upon these results. The quantised Hall effect could in fact have been discovered then. The crucial experiment was carried out by Klaus von Klitzing in the spring of 1980 at the Hochfelt-Magnet-Labor in Grenoble, and published as a joint paper with G. Dorda and M. Pepper. Dorda and Pepper had developed methods of producing the samples used in the experiment. These samples had extremely high electron mobility, which was a prerequisite for the discovery. The experiment clearly demonstrated the existence of plateaux with values that are quantised with extraordinarily great precision. One also calculated a value for the constant e2 /h which corresponds well with the value accepted earlier. This is the work that represents the discovery of the quantised Hall effect. Following the original discovery, a large number of studies have been carried out that have elucidated different aspects of the quantised Hall effect. The national metrological (measurement) laboratories in Germany, the USA, Canada, Australia, France, Japan and other countries have carried out very detailed investigations of the precision of the quantisation, in order to be able to use the effect as a standard. A new and entirely unexpected discovery was made at the beginning of the 1980's when a research team at the Bell Laboratories found plateaux corresponding to the fractional numbers 1/3, 2/3, 4/3, 5/3, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 2/7..... multiplied by the constant e2 / h. This was the discovery of the fractional quantum Hall effect. This concerns an entirely new type of quantum phenomenon, in which the movements of the different electrons are very strongly linked to each other. This effect is at present the subject of extensive experimental and theoretical studies.
1984 Nobel Peace Prize to Bishop Tutu.         ^top^
     The Norwegian Nobel Committee has chosen to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 1984 to Bishop Desmond Tutu, General Secretary of the South African Council of Churches. The Committee has attached importance to Desmond Tutu's role as a unifying leader figure in the campaign to resolve the problem of apartheid in South Africa. The means by which this campaign is conducted is of vital importance for the whole of the continent of Africa and for the cause of peace in the world. Through the award of this year's Peace Prize, the Committee wishes to direct attention to the non-violent struggle for liberation to which Desmond Tutu belongs, a struggle in which black and white South Africans unite to bring their country out of conflict and crisis. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to a South African once before, in 1960 when it was awarded to the former president of the African National Congress, Albert Lutuli. This year's award should be seen as a renewed recognition of the courage and heroism shown by black South Africans in their use of peaceful methods in the struggle against apartheid. This recognition is also directed to all who, throughout the world, use such methods to stand in the vanguard of the campaign for racial equality as a human right. It is the Committee's wish that the Peace Prize now awarded to Desmond Tutu should be regarded not only as a gesture of support to him and to the South African Council of Churches of which he is leader, but also to all individuals and groups in South Africa who, with their concern for human dignity, fraternity and democracy, incite the admiration of the world.
1973 Nobel Peace Prize to Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.         ^top^
     At its meeting on October 16 the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Storting decided to award the Peace Prize for 1973 to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, the two chief negotiators who succeeded in arranging the ceasefire after negotiating for nearly four years. For many long and bitter years the civilian population of Vietnam and the fighting troops engaged on both sides had borne the sufferings and privations of war. This was a war that concerned not only Vietnam and its people; it was a war moreover that had poisoned the atmosphere in countries and between countries all over the world. Never since the conclusion of the Second World War have the people of Vietnam enjoyed unbroken peace. At the conclusion of the World War France was faced in Vietnam with a powerfully armed resistance movement under Communist leadership. Attempts to negotiate a solution to the problem of establishing and recognising an independent Vietnamese state proved unsuccessful. Open war broke out. Although the number of French troops involved amounted to close on 400,000, France failed to crush the opposition. After the defeat of France at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 a ceasefire agreement was concluded at Geneva. A military line of demarcation was drawn at the 17th parallel. The intention was for the country subsequently to be unified after free elections had been held. This, however, was not to be: the new government in South Vietnam maintained that free elections could not be carried out under the Communist regime in the north. As a result two states emerged on the soil of Vietnam. Between 1954 and 1960 the two Vietnamese states took shape, a Communist state in the north and a non-Communist one in the south. In South Vietnam a guerilla movement, opposed to the government in power, came into being. In the course of 1960 its activities increased. At the end of that year a joint organisation and command was established in the National Liberation Movement, the FLN. It was acclaimed in North Vietnam, and the South Vietnamese government maintained that the FLN was operating under North Vienamese control. During the years that followed the South Vietnamese government failed to hold in check the increasing activities and influence of the FLN. It was also clear that attempts to create an effective administration and government in South Vietnam had failed. In 1964 decisions were made that resulted in the United States during the next few years, committing American armed forces to acts of war on Asian soil. These troops were at that time engaged both in a civil war in South Vietnam and in a war between the two Vietnamese states. This took the form of a large-scale commitment of American forces on South Vietnamese soil, as well as air attacks on targets in North Vietnam and on supply lines, through Laos and Cambodia, for North Vietnamese troops. In March 1969 the number of American soldiers in Vietnam reached maximum figures of 541,500 men. The escalation of the American commitment was matched by a corresponding increase in North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. The world today is aware of the misery that the war has inflicted on the people of Vietnam. The mechanical inhumanity of modern warfare has gone hand in hand with the horrors of civil war. There is no need here to repeat the uncertain but chilling figures of the victims of this war - the dead and wounded, the orphans, prisoners of war, deportees, and homeless multitudes, fleeing from the theatre of war. The war proved a nightmare not only to the people of Vietnam but to the entire world. In 1969 the systematic withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam commenced. By December 1972, out of a one-time total of half a million, only 27,000 were still left. But the war continued, with major offensives in South Vietnam and fresh aerial attacks on North Vietnam - the latter as late as in December of last year. Nevertheless, the negotiations for a ceasefire and peace in Vietnam, initiated in Paris in 1969, only suffered minor interruptions. Finally, on January 23 of this year the United States negotiator Henry Kissinger and the North Vietnam negotiator Le Duc Tho arrived at a ceasefire agreement, which they were able to sign on January 27. The Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Storting was fully aware that a ceasefire and not a peace agreement was involved. They realised that peace has not yet come to Vietnam, and that the sufferings of the population of Vietnam are not at an end. They were also aware that events in Vietnam may yet endanger the détente in the world. The ceasefire agreement was only the first but a tremendously important step on the laborious road to full peace in Vietnam. It is our hope that the two chief negotiators and statesmen who have been awarded the Peace Prize this year will show the same understanding of the purpose and intention of the award as that expressed by Chancellor Willy Brandt in his speech here in this Festival Hall when he received the Peace Prize for 1971: "Nobel's Peace Prize is the highest honour, but at the same time the one that imposes the greatest obligations, that can be bestowed on any man bearing political responsibility.

Henry A. Kissinger was born in Germany in 1923 of Jewish parents. In 1938 his family escaped to the United States. His father, who had been a teacher, worked in an office in New York. Henry Kissinger was called up for military service in 1943, and became an American citizen. He took part in the concluding military operations in Europe, and was responsible for the administration of a small South German town administered by the occupying allied powers. In 1946 he won a scholarship for study at Harvard University. In 1954 he received his doctor's degree for a thesis on the European peace settlement after the Napoleonic Wars. In the 1950s he conducted a study group at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. This group analysed the relations of the USA to the Soviet Union, in particular problems of military security in the nuclear age. In 1957 he returned to Harvard, where he was appointed professor in 1962. In the 1950s and likewise in the 1960s he wrote a great deal on various political subjects. He also carried out research projects for President Eisenhower and President Kennedy. Without associating himself with any party he also helped to draw up Nelson A. Rockefeller's programme during the presidential election of 1968. After 1968 he worked in an advisory capacity for President Nixon. From January 1969 he was to play a central role as advisor to the President on questions of national security. In 1973 he was appointed Secretary-of-State. In all Dr. Kissinger's writing we catch sight of a basic attitude which made him particularly suited to the role he was destined to play in 1969. This attitude emerges already in local German accounts of his conduct as an American administrative officer in 1945-46. People still remember the way in which this young German-Jewish emigré, who returned to the land of his birth seven years later, wearing an American uniform, and seventeen of whose relations had been murdered under the Nazis, made it clear at once: "We have not come to take our revenge." This attitude reveals an early developed concept of the relations between people and nations, an attitude which tolerated no fanaticism - not even in a young man of German-Jewish blood, not even in his dealings with a people that had allowed fanatics to plunge them into a moral abyss. In his doctoral thesis Kissinger deals with the protracted period of peace that reigned in Europe after 1814, a period that lasted with infrequent warlike interruptions for a hundred years, right up to 1914. In dealing with this period many historians emphasise exclusively the military balance of power: no single great power was militarily strong enough to endeavour to dominate the whole of Europe - as Napoleon had done before 1814 and Germany was to do after 1914. Kissinger, on the other hand, places a great deal of emphasis on the fact that peace was bound up with an international order, based on universally accepted principles for the behaviour of states in their relations to one another. In those days, too, political systems differed widely, and the great powers had a great many conflicting interests. But by and large they respected these principles and rules, and on this basis they tried to prevent differences of systems and interests leading to war. It was therefore quite natural that Kissinger should place very great emphasis on diplomacy as a factor for the promotion of peace as well, diplomacy both as a profession and as an art. The overriding idea in Kissinger's views on foreign policy is that peace must be based on rules to which all states, at any rate the great powers, adhere in their conduct. It is not sufficient for one single state, or a number of states, to do so. On the contrary, a dangerous situation may arise if some states desire peace at any price and fail to ensure that other states, too, adhere to the rules. In his doctoral thesis he expressed this as follows: "Whenever peace - conceived as the avoidance of war - has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member of the international community. " A policy of this kind could lead to war, and the most frightening example was the Munich agreement of 1938, in which the western powers sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler. There were people who believed that as the result of this deal peace would be secured "for our lifetime". At the time there was a failure to understand that Hitler entirely ignored all the rules of the game in international relations. It goes without saying that in the case of a man with Kissinger's background the experiences of the 1930s were bound to set their mark on his thinking. Whenever political extremists acquired power in a state, they were dangerous, in his opinion, because they were unwilling to accept any permanent rules in relationships between states. For this reason he looked with profound misgiving at the Communist governments, and this was to affect his thinking with regard to the situation in the West and its security in the 1950s. At the same time, however, he was aware, at an earlier stage than most people, of the dangers to mankind that the new atomic arms involved. He was concerned with the problem of how the United States and Western Europe would be able to defend themselves without having recourse to supremely absurd means - strategic atomic arms. He pinned his hopes on the thought that in the age of atomic arms all great powers must realise that their most important task is to prevent the outbreak of nuclear warfare. It was of vital importance to them to realise this, no matter what political systems and ideologies they represented. But recognition of this fact would also of necessity compel them to develop a new relationship to one another, a new system based on universally accepted rules, as had been the case in Europe prior to 1914. This was Kissinger's working hypothesis, the basis of his great experiment in foreign policy. In a world of this kind the United States should not, in his opinion, try to play the role of "world policeman". The other powers, first and foremost the Soviet Union and China, should be invited to join in as equal partners, enjoying the same rights in this policy and with the same responsibility for peace in the world. Kissinger is no technocrat: when he set out on his journeys to Moscow and Peking after 1969 he had no cut-and-dried solutions to the problems, devised at his desk in Washington. He approached these problems with his working hypothesis, his message, his queries. This great experiment indicates a way out of the world situation created by the Second World War and the Cold War. The policy Kissinger has attempted to put into effect since 1969 is closely bound up with the ideas he had arrived at long before 1969. No one is in any doubt as to his personal contribution to the policy of détente. In a recent interview he made it quite clear that it is precisely because they have conflicting interests and different systems and ideologies that it has become imperative to seek a détente in the relationship between the great powers. This is why it is so important to reduce the danger of nuclear warfare. The détente provides governments with opportunities to negotiate, and to act swiftly when required, as well as the opportunity to show moderation. This was emphasised in connection with the crisis in the Middle East. This year's Nobel Prize winner has been called a realist. He cautions against the markedly ideological and emotionally conditioned approach in foreign policy, in his own country as well. This realism of his is deeply rooted in a considered conviction, a fundamental ethical attitude which has remained unshaken through changing times and situations. His preoccupation has been the responsibility of the statesman in an imperfect and multifarious world, full of danger. Now he himself bears the burden of such responsibility. In the years that lie ahead we shall know how far his experiment will take us on the road to a safer world. But this depends not only on Henry Kissinger, nor only on the United States. One of the touchstones in the conflict is the Middle East; another touchstone is the conflict in Vietnam. Here the result depends on all parties involved in the conflict, both the states in the actual area of conflict and the superpowers who are involved. In our part of the world, too, in Europe, negotiations are at present going on for a détente, security and cooperation within the global framework which this great experiment has provided. Today a handful of great statesmen are sitting down at the conference table, deciding the question of war and peace in the world. But the millions of people whose fate is at stake cannot allow the politicians to carry the burdens and responsibility alone. By means of an active and positive world opinion we must make our contribution to the fulfilment of our hopes for peace. Irrespective of national boundaries the peoples of this world, and not least the peace organisations, must speak with one voice, the voice of peace, so loudly that the politicians are forced to listen. There are people today who cynically shrug their shoulders at negotiated agreements. This is an amoral, nay, a dangerous attitude. Ceasefire agreements between states must not be called in question, they must not be interpreted merely as paper resolutions, but as a moral and inviable obligation between the states that have signed them. Only with an honest approach of this kind to the intentions and obligations of international agreements can they help us along the road to peace. The peace at which we must aim must not be limited merely to the avoidance of military conflict. Real peace in the world can only mean that all of us, in every country, should make it possible for people, irrespective of race, religion, ideology, or nationality, to live a life free from fear, free from violence, free from terrorism - a life in which the fundamental human rights are the secure and imperishable possession of every single human being.
annex to

updated 011013 03:30 UT
safe site
site safe for children safe site