Hungarian Church Press, 1968 (20. évfolyam, 2. szám)
1968-06-01 / 2. szám
HCP Vol XX Special Number 1968 No 2- 159 -(07940) self-interest. These phenomena hinder, limit and threaten peaceful coexistence and are diametriaally opposed to the requirements of a new international ethos. At the same time, what we actually need is more than the elimination of these negative tendencies, The new international ethos should also include the requirement that the positive potentialities implicit in the idea of peaceful coexistence he fully realised in all matters of common ooncern, as fight against starvation, the solution of social problems within the individual societies, the efforts to establish economic justice in international life and the integration of efforts, even in a sacrificial spirit, for helping the development of underdeveloped peoples. It is, therefore, obvious, on the one hand, that disarmament is an integral part of a world order based on the new international ethos* But it is also obvious, on the other hand, that the fuller the consequences' of tip new international ethos are unfolded, also in the form of a'warIdáidé solidarity of mankind, the better are the chances of disarmament. This is nothing less than the basic alternative we all face. We either find the ethical norms in accord with the universality of the world, and by the consistent implementation of the principle of coexistaice, we complete the taáe Of disarmament, or we continue to live under the shadow of ultimate destruction, with the tormenting realisation that this potentiality may at ary time become a terrible reality, 6) The development of a new international ethos would also greatly help us in solving one of the most important psychological problems of the disarmament negotiations, the question of confidence. In the course of coming disarmament negotiations, the atmosphere ccf mutual confidence might vitalize and speed up our efforts, while mistrust is a retarding force* Yet even in the eventual course of enacting and implementing the agreements we-hope to achieve, mutual trust will remain a factor with which we cannot dispense with. For, even if we have the best safeguards and the most highly developed instruments of control, there still remains a risk to be reckoned with. Nothing could promote mutual confidence so effectively as the progressive strengthening and implementation of a new international ethos, ' But, as a matter of course, we must be here on guard agxinst thinking in stereotypes and abstractions. It would, be dangerous and also harmful to the development of the new international ethos if we drew the conclusion that the matter of disarmament is to be delayed until full confidence^ is restored or created between ihe states and the political divisions eliminated. True as it is that a certain measure of mutual confidence is the pre—condition of making progress in the matter of disarmament, it is also true that one of the sources of mistrust is precisely the activity of arming and the
