Sir,
I was born in 1915, brought up in England, becoming increasingly aware with my school friends, of world affairs in the 20s, and impressed like many others of them, by the one effort that had ever been made to unite the nations of the world – democracies and dictatorships – in the setting up of an all-encompassing international organisation to avoid a repetition of the disaster, which the then nations of the world had just endured – with some 15 million killed worldwide as a result of military and other hostile operations, and some 20 million more succumbing soon afterwards to a worldwide ’flu epidemic.
That was a period in which millions of families had seen the premier nations of the world ready to sacrifice their young sons in the name of patriotism – and, thereby, had become ready to support any effort to avoid a repetition. As a result, the League of Nations was formed and accepted. I can say that most young people of my generation wholeheartedly supported it. Sad to say the USA – a verbal help in the promotion of the idea – did not take a leading part in subsequent stages, but was part of a consensus of greater states which began to use the League as a lead motive in its subsequent working for each of their individual conceptions for their own advantage. As a result, the League failed to help world society in preventing a second world war. But the idea was revived at the end of World War II with the United Nations, set up with the same major objective – only to be used by major powers in specific spheres of action to promote their own nationalistic ends – but nevertheless accepted as a background organisation because of fine and necessary work in specific but less important spheres of human relationships.
However, today, nearly everyone I meet in discussion of world affairs agrees on the very sorry state of international co-operation. But when the UN is mentioned they merely say that it is hopelessly ineffective, give no ear to any ‘unenlightened’ suggestion that informed international co-operation must become the major object of all our nations combined in a more effective way than before. Rather I find that the much greater interest is given to the domestic scene by all nationals – usually in their reactions to coming elections. The attitude being, ‘How is it going to affect me – my tax positions and my family’s chances for better medical treatment and for better educational opportunities?’
In conclusion, therefore, (now that we know how to make the hydrogen bomb), does not this story of homo sapiens liken itself to that of the Gadarene swine. Or on a lighter note, are not apposite the words of my friend to his CO as his platoon marched dangerously close to the cliff edge (in the south Atlantic island of St Helena), ‘For God’s sake say something if it’s only good-bye’.
Denis Britton
Limassol
