Year XXXVIII, 1996, Number 2 - Page 96



The World Federalist Movements from 1955 to 1968 and European Integration
The World Movement for World Federal Government (WMWFG), now called the World Federalist Movement (WFM), was founded at the end of the Second World War in Montreaux. After an initial burst of enthusiasm, when it seemed the long-awaited moment had all but arrived, the organisation met a serious crisis at the Rome Congress of 1950, when its American section blocked an appeal that was directed at the communist-inspired Partisans of Peace.
Faced with the increase of international tension at the time of the Korean war, the movement was obliged to restrict its objectives and moderate its ambitions. At the same time, its relationships with the European federalists, which were at times conflictual, became more and more tenuous up until the 1970’s. Nevertheless, the movement succeeded in keeping the flame of world federalism alive until the new international situation at the beginning of the 1980’s enabled, through the Gorbachev Plan and the end of the cold war, the political unification of mankind to become a key issue in history.[1]
The Congress of Paris.
The ninth Congress of the Young World Federalists (YWF) took place in Saint Mandé from 22nd to 24th July 1955, just before the 7th Congress of the WMWFG, which was held in Paris from 26th to 29th July. Francis Gérard, president of the Union Fédéraliste Mondiale (UFM), assigned it the task not so much of “elaborating a doctrine, nor of giving a global overview of our methods, but of establishing and asserting our presence with regard to the difficulties of our time”. Francis Gérard also wrote that “the reform of the UN Charter is of the utmost importance this year; in fact, the General Assembly will meet in New York on the second Tuesday of December and will be able to decide, in particularly favourable circumstances, to summon a Conference for the revision of the Charter”.[2] The Congress met with success: Citoyens du Monde[3] headlined their November 1955 issue, “After the Congress of Paris, world federalism has become a political reality”, highlighting the fact that 16 ministers of the French government[4] and 100 international personalities, including the ex-secretary general of the UN, Trygve Lie,[5] had either attended the congress or sent messages to the participants. The WMWFG Congress deliberated a number of problems: the revision of the UN Charter, disarmament, regional federalism and, finally, aid to less developed countries.[6]
The reform of the UN Charter has never really been undertaken, despite the hopes of the world federalists and a vote of the 10th General Assembly which accepted the need for it and nominated a commission charged with presenting a report to the General Assembly in 1957; after a 10-year delay, in 1965 the issue was adjourned indefinitely.
It is in this context that the world federalist parliamentarians and the world federalist youth were set to hold their annual congresses in London and Manchester, while the WMWFG was organising a study conference at Lyme Hall. These three meetings were held from 25th July to 11th August. At London’s County Hall, some parliamentarians proposed the fusion of the parliamentarians and the WMWFG, in the hope that this would enable a greater degree of incisiveness, since “although there exists a liaison committee between the two bodies, its action, and above all its effectiveness, has proved to be insufficient”.[7]
The Suez Crisis and the Failure to Reform the San Francisco Charter.
The Suez Crisis provided the opportunity for the world federalists to stress the urgent need for a world federation, and in particular for international intervention forces that would be able to avoid the repetition of situations similar to those generated by the lone intervention of Great Britain and France.[8] In light of the outcome of the crisis, some world federalists asserted that, “the most insignificant events go beyond the European context,” and concluded that “the world union will be created prior to the European one”.[9]
The World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government adopted an “Urgent Manifesto”, in which it called for an immediate revision of the San Francisco Charter, publishing this in its magazine One World during the winter of 1956-1957.[10] The 10th Congress of the WMWFG, whose general secretary at the time was Ralph Lambardi, took place in Scheveningen-The Hague, from 26th to 31st August 1957, on the theme “How to make the UN more effective”. The Congress, which adopted a number of resolutions and approved the “Hague Manifesto”, elected as the new president of the World Movement, Komla Agbeli Gbedemah, Ghana’s finance minister, who had been connected with the world federalists since 1951 and spoke as “a representative of one of the youngest nations”. He declared his conviction that the inter-parliamentary union and the WMWFG would be able to increase their influence by collaborating with each other, called for a “more decisive effort for the revision of the UN Charter”, supported the plan “for a single police force for the world” and, finally, highlighted the anti-colonialist struggle of the African continent.[11]
In October 1957, the WMWFG, following an invitation by its Japanese section and the Japanese parliamentary group for a world federation, held a regional congress in Kyoto. This was dedicated primarily to issues concerning Asian and African countries and insisted on the need for co-operation among the peoples of these two continents, “with regard to economic aid and the abolition of colonialism”[12] (in English-speaking Africa, not only in Ghana but also in Nigeria and Sierra Leone, WMWFG sections were being founded). Debates in the commissions dealt instead with the issue of nuclear weapons and the strengthening of UN powers.
The Law of the Sea.
At the beginning of 1958, the UN Law of the Sea Conference was held in Geneva; from the world federalist point of view it was a failure. The world federalists held this problem to be of great importance, since the conservation and correct use of marine resources seemed to them essential in order to prevent famine in a world that was at the height of a demographic explosion. The French jurist Paul de la Pradelle argued that “except for the Convention on the open seas..., the Geneva Conventions regarding maritime law asserted the rights of the states over the sea, rather than drawing up a set of rules governing the use of the sea which went beyond the various sovereignties for the common good of the nations”.[13]
Citoyens du Monde, the organ of the French Union Fédéraliste Mondiale, had in the meantime changed its title to Monde Uni, in order to avoid confusion with Garry Davis. In its editorial, it specified that, “The UFM is not disowning the World Citizens, who have been and remain an integral part of our movement. It is not a matter of relegating World Citizenship into a trunk full of objects for which we no longer have any use... Unfortunately, an unpleasant confusion has been created in the minds of many people. Since Garry Davis stimulated this wonderful popular enthusiasm which caught the imagination of the masses for a season, the likeable and worthy expression, “world citizen”, has been on everyone’s lips and in all the newspapers. The country experienced a great moment of expectation and hope... Then the gesture, which was not supported by any doctrinal thinking and which caught the world by surprise, proved to have no future… From time to time, there was news about the difficulties, the successes and the setbacks of the hero of the new dawn, but it was ignored that disparate groups of people of good will upheld the hope and kept alive the sacred fire. It is at this point that for many people “world citizenship” became synonymous with lost cause and puerile utopia... where beauty used to be, there remains nothing but banality”.[14]
Discussing this change of title, Francis Gérard, president of the UFM specified that, “The international situation continues to deteriorate… Local conflicts are multiplying... The arms race has reached a climax… The failure of traditional diplomacy is clear to all... Faced with the catastrophic evolution of world affairs, the world federalists have more than ever the duty to speak up... This extension of the UFM’s propaganda is symbolised by the name change of its publication”. Moreover, he never failed to insist that Monde Uni would reserve “also for the idea of world citizenship a privileged space, a dedicated column”.[15]
World Federalists and Decolonisation.
The new theme of the abolition of colonialism became a constant subject of the world federalists’ deliberations, who sought in this way to counter the reputation for being a pro-western movement which had been attributed to them after the Rome Congress of 1951. This was particularly pronounced in France, in the context of the decolonisation of black Africa. Philippe Comte analysed from a world federal viewpoint the role of federalism in Africa, from the moment when it “entered the scene” on the occasion of the conquest of independence by African collectives: “Can the slow, but irreversible, shift from a regime of colonial administration to one of autonomy... serve the cause of world federalism? Can world federalism in its turn encourage this change? We believe that on these two points the answer is ‘yes’. World federalism can expect a decisive contribution from an Africa that will carry its fair weight in the Third World and the United Nations Organisation as a whole, helping it to exit the blind alley where it currently finds itself. The apparently irremediable conflict between the two imperialisms has caused the failure of disarmament projects and reform of the UN... The problem is to break through this devilish impasse... The impact of a ‘détente’, which would lead to an agreement ‘at the highest levels’ of the most serious conflicts, is not to be underestimated... A forceful presence of the ‘non-aligned’ states at the UN may prove much more decisive. Following Bandung, it should have been understood that the grouping of forces can not be reduced to a simple bi-partite division: the Third World has asserted its independence; President Nehru’s ‘five points’ have won the approval of sincere pacifists. The representation at the Assembly of the United Nations of young states desirous of their independence, which will be strengthened some time in the future by the delegations of new African states, may have an enormous impact on the evolution of the organisation, leading it towards the realisation of an international order in which the use of force is subordinated to law and justice... Will not the young states of the Third World, currently condemned to various types of co-existence yet indifferent to all compromises, sooner or later be spurred into calling for their political and economic independence to be guaranteed by an international authority that possesses the effective legal and material means?”
Philippe Comte was optimistic about the potential role of the ex-British colonies, which combined “indigenous aspirations” with the “tradition of British liberalism”. Regarding French black Africa, he observed that while its future remained undecided between national independence, an African federation, a confederation with the ex-colonial metropolis or a combination of these different formulas, even in the framework of a confederation with France, “the African influence can direct the foreign policy of the future confederation towards a renewal, a detente, a more energetic action aimed at strengthening international institutions”. Philippe Comte argued that Third World countries, and especially Africa, could expect a great deal from a world federalism that would be able “to facilitate and consolidate their access to a genuine command over their destinies” since “the solution proposed by the world federation is the only one which is free from all imperialistic implications”. He also noted that “The new African states will be able to achieve stability and prosperity only if they integrate themselves into a structured international community”.
Referring back to the Congress of Kyoto, which he likened to a “real and proper federalist Bandung,” Philippe Comte concluded by underlining the importance of this theme for the WMWFG, which is “‘world federalist’ in its principles, but overly ‘western’ in its actions” because, he stressed, “a malevolent propaganda will not fail to play on this ambivalence and to see in it, under a veneer of idealism, a more subtle form of western imperialism. Our only chance to dispel this ambivalence is to balance our efforts by developing them initially in the vast terrain of the Third World”.[16]
In September 1958, the 7th Conference of the World Association of Parliamentarians for a World Government was held in Paris, Versailles and Royan, in an itinerant fashion. It gathered together many famous personalities, including Lord Attlee, ex-leader of the British Labour party, who declared in his welcome address: “In practice or potentially, international anarchy exists throughout the world. Twenty years ago I stated that Europe had to federate or else perish. I now say that the world must federate or else perish.” During the same conference, Robert Buron, member of the French government and president of the French world federalist parliamentary group, passed on to the delegates one of de Gaulle’s reflections, who, when welcoming in his capacity as prime minister a delegation of the Congress, made this observation with regard to their ideal: “It is the dream of a wise man: if peace is the aim, then a world government will be needed”.[17] The Royan Congress called for the creation within the UN of an “Administration for the direct management of the trust territories, which should progressively take over from the current international trust authorities,... under the control of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council and answerable to the General Assembly”.[18]
Finally, in 1958, the WMWFG was officially recognised by the United Nations as a non-government organisation (NGO).
In August 1959, the 10th Congress of the WMWFG took place in The Netherlands, attended by delegates from Asia, Africa, America and Europe, and unanimously re-elected the Ghanaian K.A. Gbedemah to head the organisation. The Congress particularly stressed the importance of the role that neutral and non-aligned countries could play to facilitate peace, by placing themselves between the two opposing blocks. A series of resolutions were adopted, in a reasonably optimistic atmosphere a few months after a summit between Soviet and American leaders, regarding the conditions for a revision of the UN Charter, its universality, the creation of an international police force, the end of nuclear experiments, the setting up of an agency for aid to developing countries and the Berlin crisis.
At the end of September, the Association of Parliamentarians for a World Government sent a project to the secretary general of the United Nations prepared by Lord Attlee and approved by the Bern Congress, at which 34 nations were represented.[19] This project for UN reform included the request that, in the framework of a bi-cameral legislative system, the General Assembly be replaced by a House of Commons elected by universal suffrage and by a House of States, whose members were to be appointed by the governments. The Security Council would become an executive organ elected by the two houses for a period of four years.
At the end of 1959, faced with the “exacerbation of the ideological struggles and tensions caused by nationalisms, demographic pressures and economic injustices,” the Conseil français pour une Assemblée Constituante des peuples (CFACP) and the UFM decided that “while respecting the differences in their nature, functioning and methods, to coordinate their activities to the greatest degree possible”.[20] From April 1961 onwards, the CFACP’s publication, which since 1954 had been issued under the title Pour des institutions mondiales, appeared inside the UFM’s magazine.
In the May 1960 issue of World Federalist, the WMWFG’s international magazine, John Pinder (a member of Federal Union, who in the 1980’s became president of the UEF after its re-unification) took a pro-European federalism line, in support of which he presented a solemn appeal.[21] Some months later, the WMWFG Congress was attended by 200 delegates in Cologne, and focused on the themes of “world order”, “world progress” and more specifically, aid to developing countries.[22]
At the beginning of 1961, in the wake of the propaganda efforts of previous years, the WMWFG was able to set up many national sections in French-speaking Africa, especially in Cameroon, and to establish contacts as a first step to creating new groups in Congo (Brazzaville), Madagascar and Tunisia. In November, a delegation of the UFM went to Senegal, where it was received by Jean Rous, at that time a councillor in the republic’s presidential office.[23]
The Congress of Vienna and the “Strategy for Peace”.
In July 1961, the WMWFG organised its 10th Congress in Vienna on the theme, “The strategy for peace”. It was held some time after John Kennedy met the general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party in the same city, a meeting which, despite not achieving spectacular results, had nevertheless not aggravated the international situation either. In this context, the WMWFG occupied itself particularly with the significance of neutral countries[24] and launched an appeal to the world “so that we refuse to be dragged along by the psychosis of war: war is not unavoidable... The world federalists assert that peace can be guaranteed only if law substitutes violence in the relationships among peoples; they therefore insist on the need to create common institutions at the world level... The Congress stresses that the United Nations Organisation must not only survive, but must develop, become universal and strengthen itself in this world that is in transformation”.
This urgent appeal by the WMWFG was later addressed more specifically to the Third World: “Economic development becomes particularly urgent once independence has been won in new countries whose standard of living must be rapidly raised to a decent level by an organisation which is placed under the aegis of the United Nations, in particular through the organisation of markets and stabilisation of the competition for raw materials. In order to organise a lasting peace and prosperity in the world, the world federalists appeal to the active cooperation of the peoples of East and West and those of the Third World, whose role in world politics must be predominant in order to oblige the two blocs to work together”.[25]
The Japanese physicist and Nobel prize-winner Hideki Yukawa was elected as the new president of the WMWFG by the congress, which gathered together over 300 participants from 34 countries in North America, Europe, and also Latin America, as well as from Pakistan, Japan, India, Vietnam, Cameroon, Congo, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Senegal, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Egypt, and others.
The First Contacts with the Soviet World.
During the following months the world federalists took their considerations on the need for a rapprochement between East and West to the pacifist organisations of the socialist block, because, as Philippe Comte wrote in Monde Uni, “deliberating the reform of the United Nations among a restricted clique will never be anything other than a mere academic exercise. It is of no use developing arguments without taking into account the existence of socialist states which make up nearly half the world’s population, pretending to ignore that without the agreement of these states even the best reform projects will end up in the waste-paper basket. The agreement of the Soviet Union and the states which are in its sphere of influence is more than an aspect of the problem: it is the very basis of the problem of reforming the United Nations”.[26]
For the first time, on the initiative of the British movement Christian Action, representatives of the World Council for Peace, heavily conditioned by Soviet raison d’état, and militant pacifists from the Third World and the West gathered together for an international conference on disarmament and tension reduction, held in London in September. Maurice Cosyn, the very active organiser of the Union Fédérale Belge, took part and detected the first signs of the “thaw of the Soviets with regard to the world federalist movement”; a Soviet academic, Alexandre Korneitchouk, a member of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, proposed to summon for 1962 a peoples congress “composed not only of the delegates of all the peace organisations, but also of a wide cross-section of representatives from the fields of science, culture, religion and professional organisations, in front of which the political and military leaders of the great nations would be invited to present themselves in order to explain their attitude towards humanity”. In October, a delegation of the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government went to the Soviet Union at the invitation of the Soviet Peace Committee.[27]
On 19th December, the UN’s General Assembly unanimously adopted a motion which declared the 1960’s a “decade of development”: the member states committed themselves to increasing their efforts to aid developing countries and the secretary general was charged with drawing up a plan in light of the intensification of the UN’s activity to facilitate economic and social development”.[28]
In February 1962, the European Federalist Movement (MFE) held its congress in Lyons, and on this occasion the arguments of Altiero Spinelli’s supporters were contrasted with those of the Federalist Autonomy group, gathered around Mario Albertini. Among other things, this congress marked the end of the constituent experience of the Congress of the European People that had been inspired by Spinelli, which, at least in its guiding principles, was similar to the People’s Congress that some world federalists planned to launch in 1963. For the first time after many years, this congress offered an opportunity to the world federalists of the UFM to take a position with regard to European integration. After recalling that the MFE asserts in its statutes that “the European federation must be considered a stage-post on the way to the world federation,” Francis Gérard stressed that it was in fact “easy to appreciate that the creation of a world federation would be enormously eased if the world were composed essentially of a dozen or about fifteen regional federations.” He welcomed the fact that the passage to the second stage of the Common Market had brought about significant progress regarding the social and economic integration of the six member countries, but denounced “the absence of direct participation by the peoples in this integration, for example in the form of a European parliament elected by universal suffrage, and the absence of a common political power,” pointing out that the main obstacle was represented by Gaullist France. Finally, Francis Gérard highlighted that “the most important thing from the world federalist point of view is the fact that the Europe of Six has no desire to close itself off through economic autarchy, which would be an ill omen for relationships at the world level. In fact, Europe is on the verge of enlarging itself through the membership or association of other European countries, it has established very wide ranging commercial relations with the United States, it has joined in association with the African states of the so-called Monrovia group and carries forward its commercial policy within the GATT framework”.
Francis Gerard argued therefore that “to a certain extent” the European Community satisfied “the condition of being open to the world”, with the exception of relations with Eastern-bloc countries, even though he re-asserted the world federalist conviction according to which certain problems would be “utterly unsolvable within the European framework”. The federalist leader concluded thus: “The regional federations are very important not only as stage-posts towards the world federation, but also from the viewpoint of the very foundations of federalism... If regional federal solutions were to be discarded, there would remain nothing else but the choice between centralisation on a world scale, which would be dangerous for the fundamental freedoms, and the maintenance of the national states, which are incapable of solving the great problems of our time... The regional federations are then as necessary for the good functioning of the world federation as the world federation is necessary in order to complete the regional federations”.[29]
In autumn of the same year, two world federalist meetings were set to take place in Geneva. The first, on the initiative of the “Phoenix group”, was supposed to summon delegates from the governments of various nations in a world constituent assembly, but it did not take place. The second, organised by Philip Isely’s “Denver group” was held as expected, as a preparatory meeting for the project launched by the World Committee for a World Constituent Assembly. This project looked forward to assembling in a single gathering government delegates, others elected by the peoples, and representatives of the world federalist associations. In the course of this meeting, a motion was adopted that pleaded for the participants of the Peoples Constituent Assembly (PCA) to unite in a single organisation, regardless of what projects they may have.
From 23rd to 26th October, the 21st Conference of World Federalist Parliamentarians was held in Paris, and Lord Silkin was elected president of the association. On the subject of European unity, this British parliamentarian declared: “The path towards European unification (which is linked to America and perhaps to the British Commonwealth and to the territories of the ex-colonies of other nations, particularly France) is a very promising trend towards world unity. I recognise that this is a controversial issue and that not everyone in our movement shares my opinion”.[30]
The Encyclical “Pacem in Terris”.
A significant event for the world federalists in 1963 was the publication of the encyclical Pacem in terris by Pope John XXIII. Other voices, aside from those of the European or world federalists, were raised to highlight the importance and universal significance of this text,[31] in which the head of the Catholic Church asserted the need, in order to deal with the problems of world proportions, for a “political authority with universal responsibilities, in which power, the constitution and the means to act are themselves of world dimensions, and which can operate throughout the world.” Monde Uni expressed its approval and satisfaction by noting that “the author... was not an intellectual free of responsibilities, nor a head of state caught up in the tortuous ways of international policy”, and contrasted the behaviour of the pope “in office” with the attitude of the highest-ranking political leaders who, like Lord Attlee or Edgar Faure, had openly taken identical positions, but generally “in moments when they no longer had government positions”.[32]
The British M.P. E. Lancelot Mallalieu, who was a member of Federal Union, of the British world federalist parliamentary group and vice-president of the Inter-parliamentary Union, became general secretary of the WMWFG some months before its 11th Congress, which the organisation held in Tokyo in August. Concerned with the central theme of disarmament, in its political and economic as well as moral implications, this congress focused less than previous ones on the legal aspects of the world federalist struggle and concentrated primarily on a strategic analysis of how to bring about the reform of the United Nations and invert the trend in the arms race. The Tokyo Declaration, approved by federalists coming from 32 countries and including about 2,000 Japanese,[33] began with the sentence: “We must choose between world law and world war” and recalled the principles and objectives of the organisation prior to setting out a plan of action aimed at “constructing a war-free world”.[34] On their way back from the congress, which “opened the doors of Asia to world federalism,” some delegates stopped off in India, where they were received by president Radhakrishnan and Indira Ghandi. Following this, the prime minister Jawaharial Nehru and Lord Attlee held a public meeting and Lancelot Mallalieu set up the local section of the WMWF’G in Teheran, whose chairman was the president of the Iranian senate, Sharif Amami.
Some weeks later, in Moscow, the United States, Great Britain and the USSR signed a treaty to halt nuclear experiments, whose limitations the federalists criticised, since it did not include a commitment in favour of disarmament and was neither irrevocable nor universal. The American federalists welcomed the adoption by the U.S. senate of a document that banned nuclear experiments,[35] yet subsequently complained about the meagre sum of $10,000 p.a. assigned by the House of Representatives to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.[36] In September, some weeks before his death, John F. Kennedy, addressing the General Assembly of the UN, took a stand in favour of the revision of the Charter, declaring: “The United Nations cannot survive as a static organisation.... Its Charter must be changed as well as its customs. The authors of that Charter did not intend that it be frozen in perpetuity. The science of weapons and war has made us all, far more than 18 years ago in San Francisco, one world and one human race with one common destiny. In such a world, absolute sovereignty no longer assures us of absolute security”.[37]
On 17th December, for the first time in the history of the United Nations, the General Assembly approved amendments to increase the number of members of the Security Council from 11 to 15 and the members of the Economic and Social Council from 18 to 27, in order to enable the better representation of African and Asian countries.
1963 also saw the creation, in May, of a Committee for the Peoples Congress. This was promoted by the partisans of the PCA, who were aware of the fact that the plans drawn up in 1949 by the Constituent Assembly on the back of the wave of enthusiasm in the immediate post-war period, had by then become impractical in the short term. Jeanne Hasle and Josué de Castro, who were later to become the first two delegates elected to this congress, a “prototype for the world assembly”, specified how “the idea of the Peoples Congress” had been “born out of the need to find a rapid and effective solution to the practical representation of the claims of the citizens of the world”.[38] Alfred Rodrigues-Brent, resistance fighter and Dutch world federalist, had taken nearly 15 years to develop his project, helped by the Belgian Maurice Cosyn and the Frenchman Jacques Savary, both engaged with Citoyens du Monde and with the world federalists.[39] In May 1963, the project was adopted during a meeting in Brussels: it defined “the bases of the electorate, the organisation of elections and their financing, as well as the organisation, tasks and work methods of the Peoples Congress”.[40] It was some years before the project could become reality. In March 1966, in Paris, on the occasion of a press conference attended by four of the signatories, an appeal drawn up by Jacques Savary and supported by 13 internationally renowned personalities was launched.[41] In November 1968 a further meeting with 3,000 participants was held in Paris, attended this time by eight of the signatories, of which two came from Eastern Europe. The first round of the transnational postal ballot took place the following year, in March 1969. From 1969 to 1994 many elections have been held, which have enabled year after year the members of the International Register of World Citizens, the embryo of “a world civil state”, certain pacifist or world federalist associations and the inhabitants of the globalised local communities of different countries, to vote for what Guy Marchand termed “a laboratory experiment”.[42]
In 1964, the federalists of the UWF formed a coalition with the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) which gathered together the majority of pacifist groups, and together they established a committee that was charged with studying the merger of the two movements with the aim of creating a “new dynamic” and constituting “the biggest American organisation for peace, disarmament and world law”.
European Unification, World Federalism and Gaullism.
Once again Monde Uni took an interest in European integration, denouncing the Gaullist policy regarding the adoption of a common agricultural policy in December of the previous year: “In order to highlight his disgust for any organisation which aspires to use its authority in the common interest, above the national sovereignties, General de Gaulle once used the derogatory term ‘thing’ with regard to the UN... It is not the French ultimatum, but the arbitration of the ‘European thing’, the Executive Commission of the Community, that has enabled a split to be avoided”.[43]
In autumn, the American federalists, through their president C. Maxwell Stanley, called on president Johnson and the secretary general of the UN, U Thant, to reinforce urgently the peace-keeping capacities of the United Nations in light of the Vietnam crisis.[44]
The Twentieth Anniversary of the UN and the War in Vietnam.
Meanwhile, the American federalists of the UWF pursued their negotiations with SANE, denouncing the prospect of an Indonesian withdrawal from the United Nations as a serious threat to the very future of the UN, should the right of secession be recognised,[45] while the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the San Francisco Charter was prepared for by both diplomats and world federalists.
The 12th Congress of the WMWFG took place in June 1965 in San Francisco itself, on the general theme “The UN in the next twenty years”. The work of the congress was divided among three commissions regarding “freedom from war”, “freedom from need” and “freedom for diversity”, while the very functioning of the UN was called into question by serious financial problems and by the continual escalation of the Vietnamese conflict. General Carlos P. Romulo, chancellor of the University of the Philippines and ex-president of the General Assembly, gave the opening address. Most notable of the other speeches were those by the Brazilian doctor and parliamentarian Josué de Castro, who was active within the International Register of World Citizens and the Peoples Congress, the American Norman Cousins and the Pakistani professor Muhammed Zafrula Khan, who was a member of the International Court of Justice. The 1,000 participants, coming from 30 countries and including a very numerous Japanese delegation, approved the Declaration of San Francisco, whose objective was to highlight forcefully the dangers that the abolition of the UN or its long-term impotence would have caused for mankind. In the aftermath of the congress, Francis Gérard noted: “Faced with the incoherence of the political stands of the so-called ‘classical bourgeoisie’ and with the schism which is dominating the communist world, world federalism represents the only coherent and unifying basis of world politics”.[46]
In an article presenting the Declaration of San Francisco, Monde Uni wrote: “Perhaps the declarations of two, essentially different organisations should not be compared... On one side, the representatives of the states, on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations. On the other, the militants. Both of these groups have expressed with remarkable similarity their fears and hopes for the UN, yet their accord ended there. This is because the former expressed the viewpoints of their national governments; whereas the latter, seizing the opportunity of the 12th WMWFG Congress, were able to claim to be speaking in the name of the peoples”.[47]
The American writer Norman Cousins was elected president of the WMWFG, in place of Hideki Yukawa, while the world federalists attacked American policy in Vietnam, addressing a solemn reprimand to president Johnson.[48]
In June 1965, Monde Uni intervened once again in the debate raised by the European crisis, when the French minister of foreign affairs reaffirmed that France, “in order to resolve the crisis”, would rely “only on inter-governmental solutions”.[49] At the world level, the general secretary of the United Nations, U Thant, launched an appeal for the admission of the People’s Republic of China to the UN, while ten countries claimed that “the restoration of Peking’s rights” should be added to the agenda of the twentieth session of the General Assembly.
For a second time, twenty years after the first Dublin Conference, the American jurist Grenville Clark organised a new conference in this New Hampshire town, which, under the direction of Kingman Brewster, president of the prestigious Yale University, demanded an effective world organisation for the prevention of war: “... in these twenty years an increasing number of us have come to believe that national sovereignty must be tempered and replaced by regional and international systems of cooperation..... The Dublin conference points out that the UN Charter, drafted before Hiroshima, is inadequate for its avowed purpose of maintaining peace and security. While appreciating what the world organization has accomplished, it finds the UN now deficient in these respects: 1. Nations having more than one fourth of the population of the world are not members. 2. The Security Council has often been paralyzed by the veto. 3. There is no standing peace force to take effective action against aggression. 4. The one nation, one vote rule in the General Assembly makes unrealistic the conferring of needed legislative powers on that body. 5. There is no court system with the jurisdiction and powers required for the peaceful settlement of disputes among nations. 6. There is no system to provide sufficient and reliable revenues”.
The Dublin Conference then made three recommendations: the first on total and universal disarmament, the second on the creation of a strong world police force, and the third on the universality of the UN. The conference also called for the abolition of the veto in the Security Council and proposed the urgent creation of a world authority for development, so as to reduce the gap between industrialised and developing countries.[50]
In 1966, Monde Uni took a stand on the Vietnam war, writing: “The efforts to arrive at a solution of the conflict with bi-lateral negotiations and the offer of mediation by various states have failed. Even a return to the 1954 and 1961 treaties does not seem to offer a solution, given the absence of any guarantee that they will be respected. Only a global initiative on a world scale will be able to provide a future of liberty to the Vietnamese people... In a realistic spirit and in the absence of anything better, it is necessary to set as initial objectives the conclusion of a ceasefire agreement, as a preliminary to the withdrawal of the Vietnamese and American forces... and the replacement of said forces with a UN peacekeeping force... The same agreement should fix the third stage, that is, the organisation of free elections under the control of the United Nations, this being the only possibility for the Vietcong and the supporters of the government to compete peacefully with equal chances of success. Such a policy can succeed only if the following conditions are met: 1) that the People’s Republic of China participates in the UN as a full member; 2) that the organs of the UN and all their members possess the necessary will to co-operate fully in this operation; 3) that the UN is provided with not only the police forces necessary to wield controlling powers, but also all logistic, administrative and legal means that this operation requires”.[51]
During the summer of 1967, 500 world federalists from 22 countries, including 200 Japanese, met in Oslo for the WMWFG Congress on the theme of reinforcing the UN’s capacity to ensure peace-keeping. For the first time, the entire congress was covered by a Soviet journalist, who was able “proudly to show the congress participants an article published on the eve of the congress in Pravda”. Another theme dealt with was the need for world federalists to strengthen the WMWFG’s structures since “up until now they had not succeeded in organising their own movement on the basis of federalist principles”.[52]
At the beginning of January 1968, the YWF and the WMWFG summoned their Councils in London, and between the end of July and the beginning of August the WMWFG held an extraordinary congress in Elsenore, Denmark. During this congress, the federalist leaders, coming from many countries (out of the about 35 in which groups officially existed), approved a new constitution for the movement in order to make it more effective and increase the powers of its international secretariat. It was decided to transfer the secretariat from The Hague to Ottawa (though the YWF’s secretariat was to remain in Copenhagen), which was now no longer to confine itself to being a liaison office, but publish a magazine in various national editions and set up a development fund for the movement.[53]
In the context of its policy of on-going contacts with the countries of Eastern Europe, the YWF organised in Vienna in July 1968 a seminar which was attended by 70 young people from 22, mostly socialist, countries on the theme: “East-West: co-operation as a step towards international order”.
Thus, even during the cold war, the world federalists understood the need to maintain contacts with circles close to the socialist countries. Furthermore, they had developed a genuine policy toward non-aligned and Third World countries in the decolonisation period. At the Brussels Congress of 1972, organised by the European Movement, which was attended also by numerous militants of the Union of European Federalists, the world federalists demonstrated once again a real interest in European integration.
It was only in the mid-1980’s that the various branches of the international federalist movement began to meet regularly once again and to take common initiatives, along the path to an operational and organisational unity which still needs to be consolidated despite the notable progress which has been made to date.

[1] For the history of the world federalist movement and its attitude towards European integration from the end of the Second World War to 1954, see Jean-Francis Billion, “The world federalist movements from 1945 to 1954 and European integration”, in The Federalist, XXXIII (1991), pp. 26-53.
[2] Francis Gérard, “Le Congrès de Paris”, in Citoyens du Monde, no. 4 (May 1955), p. 1.
[3] Citoyens du Monde, the quarterly magazine of the UFM, whose then director was Guy Marchand, began to be published after June 1954. From no. 11 onwards (July-August 1956), it was to become the organ of the UFM as well as of the Union des Mouvements européens et mondiaux pour un monde sans guerre.
[4] Aside from prime minister Edgar Faure, the following were present or sent messages: Vincent Auriol, Edouard Bonnefous, Maurice Bourges-Maunoury, Robert Buron, Edouard Corniglion-Molinier, Henri Laforest, Pierre July, Joseph-Pierre Lanet, Pierre-Olivier Lapie, Jean Lecanuet, Pierre Mendès-France, François de Menthon, Jules Moch, Antoine Pinay and Gaston Riou. Several of them were, moreover, staunch federalist militants at the time, such as Robert Buron or Gastun Riou, who had been militants in the WMWFG or UEF for many years, or leaders of the world federalist parliamentary group, suchas Joseph-Pierre Lanet or Jean Lecanuet (the latter had signed the editorial of the no. 5, June 1955, issue of Citoyens du Monde). In addition to politicians, also intellectuals, writers and musicians, such as Pablo Casals, Albert Camus, Georges Duhamel, André Maurois, Daniel Rops and Jean Rous took the opportunity to show their support for world federalist arguments.
[5] As regards the foreign personalities, it is worth noting the presence or support of Lord Boyd Orr, president of the FAO, Sicco Mansholt, Holland’s minister of agriculture and future member of the European Commission, Lord Beveridge, K.A. Gbedemah, Ghana’s finance minister, Lord Bertrand Russell, Josué de Castro, Brasilian M.P. and president of the FAO council, Clement Davies, leader of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, I.J. Pitman, conservative M.P. and former director of the Bank of England.
[6] See the minutes of the debates and final resolution of the congress in Citoyens du Monde, no. 6 and 7 (November 1955).
[7] Cf. Henri Vautrot’s comment, “Les Congrès mondialistes”, in Citoyens du Monde, no. 12 (September-October 1956), p. 2. See also in the same issue the resolutions on the Suez crisis which were adopted during the meetings of the parliamentarians and the WMWFG. In the parliamentarians’ view, “the world’s main waterways are the common property of the peoples of the world and should not be used for the benefit of a single nation; as a consequence, the administration of these waterways should be, as much as possible, in the hands of a world community”. For this reason, they recommended “that effective steps be taken immediately to transfer the administration of the Suez Canal to an authority nominated and controlled by the United Nations” and “that the possibility of transferring other international waterways to the United Nations be examined in the near future, before they become the cause of international conflicts”. In the WMWFG’s opinion, “one of the causes of the conflict lies in the lack of an international institution which is able to finance projects like the development of the Nile Valley”, hence again the recommendation to “create a world fund.”
[8] Max Juvenal, “Police et forces internationales” and Francis Gérard, “Urgence de créer une Fédération mondiale”, in Citoyens du Monde, no. 13 (November-December 1956), pp. 3-4.
[9] Hippolyte Ebrard, “L’Union mondiale se fera avant l’Union européenne”, in Citoyens du Monde, ibid., pp. 8-10. “The great dream of the United States of Europe, which was barely valid a century ago, is now fully superseded; economic, political and social life can no longer be contained within this framework. The opportunity to establish a European unity can be considered to have been lost... To organise ‘for’ something and not to unite ‘against’ somebody: this is the true spirit of peace. And the only way to achieve it is the world federation of the peoples. ‘Inconceivable, if union has not been achieved even in Europe!’ cry the partisans of Europe. ‘No, European union cannot happen, because Europe is a creation of the spirit, not a reality’”. For an argument against this text, see Francis Gérard, “L’Europe et le monde”, in Citoyens du Monde (no. 14, February-March 1957, p. 12) in which he recognises that “there are therefore two essential aspects to the principle of European federalism: the extremely evident immediate advantages and the long-term contributions to the peace and prosperity of the whole world and in this way to the world federation”.
[10] The world federalist parliamentarians’ publication One World, subtitled For World Trade and World Law, should not be confused with the periodical of the same title published some years later by the WMWFG.
[11] Regarding the Hague Congress, see in particular “Participations au X° Congrès du MUFM”, in Citoyens du Monde, no. 17 (July-August 1957), and for the speeches and messages, texts of the resolutions and manifesto, no. 18 (September-October 1957). In the former issue, see also “Euratom, Marché commun et fédéralisme mondial” by Francis Gérard and an unsigned article, “Federation régionale”, in which the magazine takes a stand in favour of regional federalism: “The recent events which lead towards a European federation, such as for example the creation of a coal and steel pool, are very encouraging for many world federalists, who consider them to be examples of what could be achieved on a world scale... Some federalists are considering the possibility of setting up an Asian federation, others are interesting themselves in an African federation and still others are working for an Atlantic federation”.
[12] Resolutions: “This Congress: 1) asks all colonial powers to take measures immediately to grant independence to all colonies and to the countries under mandate. 2) Calls on the independent countries of Asia and Africa to provide the maximum amount of aid to all the peoples who are still under the dominion or oppression of the great nations in order that they may be enabled to reach independence”, in Monde Uni, no. 21 (April-May 1958), p. 16.
[13] “Les Conventions de Genève sur le droit de la mer”, in Monde Uni, no. 23 (September-October 1958), pp. 3-4.
[14] “Nouveau départ”, in Monde Uni, no. 20 (February-March 1958), p. 1-2.
[15] ”A propos d’un changement de titre”, in Monde Uni, no. 20 (February-March 1958), p.3.
[16] Philippe Comte, “Le fédéralisme mondial et l’Afrique Noire”, in Monde Uni, no. 22 (June-July 1958), pp. 3-4.
[17] Cf. Monde Uni, no. 23 (September-October 1958). This issue also re-published two extracts from the unanimously-approved Charter of Versailles, which provided for: “1) A world parliament to draw up world laws with the aim of guaranteeing and maintaining a lasting peace; 2) an executive power to apply these laws; 3) international courts of justice with powers and jurisdiction overall conflicts relating to these world laws; 4) a world police force charged with enforcing the respect of these universal laws by all those who violate or risk violating such laws, in order to render possible the universal, simultaneous and complete disarmament of all the nations”.
[18] Monde Uni, ibid.
[19] “Thirty-four Countries Attend Eighth World Conference in Parliament House, Bern, September 24-29, 1959”, in One World, 11 (1960), no. 4.
[20] Monde Uni, no. 28-29 (October 1959). The CFACP defined itself on this occasion as “a Council of individuals elected by the commissions of the registration and information of the World Citizens. It controls these commissions, which seek to prefigure future world public services”.
[21] “The WMWFG has always accepted theoretically that the regional federations represent a constructive step forward towards world federation. Nevertheless, among all the associations which adhere to the WMWFG in Europe, the British Federal Union is the only one to have maintained European federalism as an essential part of its policy. Are its members right?... Perhaps the first advantage of the European federation... lies in its force of example for the world as a whole... Most people learn from real images and not from theoretical concepts... The development of the European federation shows us not only what needs to be done, but also teaches us how to set about it... The last two world wars began in Europe. They were European civil wars which spread to other continents. A European federation would avoid a repetition of this. Yet the existence of a European federation would also make a war between the United States and the USSR less likely... Ultimately, Europe needs a federation for its own prosperity and the world needs a prosperous Europe.”
[22] On this subject, see the dossier of Monde Uni (October 1960, pp. 4-23) on the evolution of Africa. This round table, organised by the UFM and broadcast by radio to listeners in the states of the French Community, gathered together world federalist militants and sympathisers and journalists specialised in African issues, to discuss the theme “Will Africa be a new battle-field in the struggle between East and West, or will it be the first field of operation of international co-operation inspired and directed by a world authority?”
[23] On Jean Rous see Jean-Francis Billion and Jean-Luc Prevel, “Jean Rous and Federalism”, in The Federalist, XXVIII (1986), pp. 119-130.
[24] See Philippe Comte, “Le poids des neutres”, in Monde Uni, no. 52-53 (June-July 1961), pp. 3-4 and 21.
[25] Cf. Monde Uni, no. 54 (August 1951). In the same issue, see also the article by the ex-deputy secretary general of the United Nations, Henry Laugier, “Pour une coalition des petits”, and the messages addressed to the Congress by some African leaders, particularly that of the president of Senegal, Leopold S. Senghor, from which we report some extracts. “In our opinion, federalism must be both internal and international. It represents essentially the search for unity in diversity... Unable to build true federal states immediately in Africa, we created, through the African and Madagascan Union, unions of a confederal nature. It is only on the basis of this initial form of union that we will be able to take a step forward along the path to a federal state. You have the problem of the reform of the United Nations on your agenda... I have always been in favour of the constructive reforms proposed by your movement...,it is particularly necessary to complete it with an assembly of the peoples... I am not unmindful of the fact that, since 1953, the world federalists have contributed to creating the edifice of what today is called action against underdevelopment.. As far as we are concerned, we are committed in the African continent to the efforts to beat underdevelopment... to the measures of socialisation and planning which take into account the human freedoms and the existence of living communities and which are such as to enable equilibrium and the continual growth of economic and social progress. Our revolution is based on the idea of co-operation and community. In accordance with federalist principles, we seek to combine centralisation and decentralisation, respecting regional diversities... After your Congress, we propose that you set up in Dakar a Senegalese section of the World Movement for a World Federal Government”.
[26] Philippe Comte, “Un impératif pour le mouvement fédéraliste mondial: engager le dialogue avec l’Est”, in Monde Uni, no. 57-58 (November-December 1961).
[27] Maurice Cosyn, “Un membre du Comité Central du PC de l’URSS propose d’organiser un ‘Congrès des peuples’ en 1962”, and Henry Usborne, “La pressante sincérité de Lord Attlee a impressioné les russes - Maintenant ils savent ce que nous representons”, in Monde Uni, ibid.
[28] Philippe Comte, “La décennie du développement”, in Monde Uni, no. 67 (January 1963), pp. 4-11.
[29] Francis Gérard, “Position des fédéralistes mondiaux à l’égard du fédéralisme européen”, in Monde Uni, no. 61 (March 1962). On the construction of Europe, see also the important dossier published by Monde Uni under the title “Visa pour l’espoir”, no. 64-65 (August-September 1962), which took stock of the situation regarding European unification through the evolution of the various communities, ECSC, EURATOM, etc., gave space to Etienne Hirsch, who had recently been removed from the presidency of the European Commission for atomic energy by the French government for his federalist stands, and who later became president of the French MFE, and to Alexandre Marc, re-publishing also the motion of general policy of the Montreux Congress of the UEF in 1947.
[30] “XI World Conference of World Parliament Association”, in One World, III (1963), no. 3.
[31] See, among others, the extracts, comments and articles dedicated to the encyclical Pacem in terris in the world federalist press. In particular, “Une voie pour la famille humaine”, in Monde Uni, no. 71-72 (May-June 1963), and “Papal Encyclical for World Government”, in The Federalist, Washington, IX (1963), no. 8-9 (April-May). The American federalists of the UWF also published some extracts from the encyclical under the title “Calling for World Government. Encyclical Highlights”. For its part, Il Federalista, the magazine edited by Mario Albertini, published a long critical editorial under the title “La signification politique de l’encyclique ‘Pacem in terris’’’, (V (1963), pp. 95-106). The text concluded: “... we do not join the chorus of praise and approval directed at ‘Pacem in terris’ on account of the way in which the issue of peace is presented... The truth is that a truce is not peace, but, on the contrary, the maintenance of war; that there exists no prospect of world peace until the federalist principle (which goes beyond the absolute sovereignty of the states) is not re-launched in the world, breaking and unmasking the two opposing blocs; that the struggle for world peace, as for regional federations, must be fought by the peoples against the absolute sovereignty of the states, and therefore against the political classes in power.”
[32] Monde Uni, ibid., p. 3.
[33] The Federalist, Washington, October 1963.
[34] “Déclaration de Tokyo”, in Monde Uni, no. 73-74 (July-September 1963). It can also be found in World Federalist, VIII (1963), no. 4 (October).
[35] “Test Ban Treaty Ratified. UWF Readies for Further Push”, in The Federalist, Washington, October 1963. The UWF announced its initiative to send 25,000 letters to senators in support of the treaty.
[36] “House Votes ACDCA $10 Million. Federalists Supported Larger Authorization”, in The Federalist, Washington, X (1963), no. 4 (December).
[37] “Kennedy Calls for UN Charter Change”, in The Federalist, Washington, September 1963.
[38] “Vers le Congrès des Peuples - Historique”, in Citoyens du Monde, no. 14 (October 1969). See also the obituary of Rodrigues-Brent in Citoyens du Monde, no. 21 (April 1971) and that of Josué de Castro, in Citoyens du Monde, no. 29 (October 1973).
[39] Alfred Rodrigues-Brent, “Pourquoi le Congrès des Peuples”, in Congrès des peuples, Paris, pp. 6-9. This undated book traces the history of the origins of the Peoples Congress from 1953 to 1977 and reports the texts of its main declarations, starting from its creation in July 1977 and continuing up until 1982.
[40] Citoyens du Monde, ibid.
[41] Lord Boyd Orr, Shinzo Hamai, Linus Pauling, Bertrand Russell, Hans Thirring, Danilo Dolci, Josué de Castro, Alfred Kastler, l’Abbé Pierre, Jean Rostand, Rajan Nehru, Father Hromadka and Ivan Supek.
[42] Despite the distances and the impossibility of meeting regularly, because of financial difficulties if for no other reason, the individuals elected to the Congress of Peoples, whose general secretary was, in succession, first Guy then Renée Marchand, will live in history, according to their own definition, as “the first world citizens who were elected democratically above the nation states to occupy themselves with managing symbolically, but democratically, the affairs of all mankind”. The Congress of Peoples passed a series of declarations on the environment, the United Nations, the oceans, energy and raw materials, world population, nutrition, disarmament, women, human rights, disarmament and the United Nations, the rights of children and teenagers, multinational companies, refugees, telecommunication satellites, drinking water, the right to information, health, civil nuclear energy, and desertification. Finally, during its life it set up various organisations, such as the Institut d’études mondialistes, inaugurated in La Lambertie in 1978 and currently chaired by the Belgian Marc Garcet, the Agence mondialiste de la presse and the Fond mondial de solidarité contre la faim. The tenth election, initially planned for June 1995 in San Francisco, to be held alongside the celebrations for the fiftieth anniversary of the Charter and some days before the XXII Congress of the WFM, has been postponed indefinitely.
[43] Jean-Pierre Cornet, “Ce ‘machin’ qui a sauvé l’Europe”, in Monde Uni, no. 78 (January 1964). Jean-Pierre Cornet concluded: “For a moment, there was the fear that the ‘Six’ would not be able to choose between Europe and margarine. It was the Commission, this international ‘thing’, which ultimately tipped the scales towards the future. Without it, the Common Market would have begun in December a period of stagnation prior to its definitive collapse and the failure of this experiment would have had incalculable repercussions not only for the countries directly involved, not only for the other countries of Europe and Africa associated to the EEC, but for the very cause of the regional federations, which is one of the paths along which the world will travel toward its unity”. On Gaullist foreign policy and the UFM’s criticism of it, see also Michel Voirol, “Critique mondialiste de la politique extérieure gaulliste, - Etre ‘grand’ dans un monde feodal”, in Monde Uni, no. 93-94 (May-June 1965) and “Jupiter aveugle ceux qu’il veut perdre”, in Monde Uni, no. 95 (July 1965).
[44] “UWF Asks Caution on Vietnam, Looks to UN Peace-keeping Role”, in The Federalist, Washington, XI (1964), no. 1 (September), which also published the message from C. Maxwell Stanley and the answer from the White House.
[45] “Indonesia Withdrawal from UN Poses Unique Problems”, in The Federalist, Washington, XI (1965), no. 5 (January-February).
[46] Francis Gérard, “A San Francisco, une force politique s’affirme au dessus des idéologies”, in Monde Uni, no. 96-97 (September-October 1965).
[47] Ibid. Under the title “Le defi”, Monde Uni published the declaration adopted by the WMWFG. “Mankind is threatened not only by war and the loss of freedom. Hunger, disease and poverty also weigh on the human race and represent such an impending danger that it is necessary to deal with them even before mankind reaches the objective of the world federation. Yet the elimination of these scourges needs nothing other than institutions on a world scale... History teaches us that whenever people live together, laws to regulate their conflicts of interest are needed. If we need to have world laws, we will need a world authority to create them, interpret them, pass them into law, and impose them on citizens. It is time that the power of law be recognised in international affairs, as it is now recognised within the nations... There is nothing less, nor different, to be done”. See also the final resolution of the XII Congress in Monde Uni, no. 98 (November 1965).
[48] Commenting on the WMWFG meeting, the San Francisco Chronicle wrote: “The resolutions adopted by the world federalists state that the action of the United States in Vietnam risked provoking ‘a world conflagration’ and their intervention in the Dominican Republic has ‘weakened the United Nations’. These resolutions assert that the United States’ long-standing commitment to a world order guaranteed by the law requires that American foreign policy stands aside in favour of the UN. This legal basis is seriously compromised when, in order to solve a crisis, the government employs methods which ignore or weaken the UN... In light of this, President Johnson has been strongly requested to: put forward precise proposals to amend the UN Charter in order to strengthen its powers in the field of peace-keeping; encourage, until such time these proposals are accepted, the opportunities the UN has to keep peace in the current situation...” Quoted in Monde Uni, no. 98 (November 1965).
[49] Jean-Pierre Cornet, “La crise du Marché commun: deux philosophies en conflit; l’Etat et la Communauté”, in Monde Uni, ibid.
[50] “Grenville Clark Calls Second Conference”, in The Federalist, Washington, vol. 12, no. 3 (November 1965).
[51] “Vietnam, USA et Nations Unies”, in Monde Uni, no. 100 (January 1966).
[52] “World Congress Held in Oslo”, in Canadian World Federalist, no. 32 (September-October 1967), pp. 1-3.
[53] “WAWF Turns a Corner”, in World Federalist of Canada, no. 36 (May-June 1968), pp. 9-10.

Share with