2 PARIS, 1937: COLONIAL QUESTIONS AND PEACE 121He pleaded with those assembled not to renounce so ‘modest and
reasonable’ a desire as that of freedom of thought and demanded that
the last lines of the text not be removed unless all of those present con-
sented to it.^127 Duhamel then called on those present to think ‘with
respect...of the thousands of writers currently oppressed or exiled,’ a call
to which Pavolini responded with an emphatic ‘No’. Duhamel sought
to calm the situation, insisting that Pavolini had nothing to fear as the
meeting was not ‘speaking of Italy,’ but rather had in mind certain
other countries.^128 Madariaga also deftly responded to the objections of
Pavolini, gently pointing out that there was a lack of conformity between
Pavolini’s acceptance of that part of the text of the resolutions warning
of the dangers posed by the erection of spiritual barriers between peoples
of different nations and his opposition to the proposition concerning the
dangers posed by the erection barriers to freedom of expression within
nations. Of most importance from Madariaga’s perspective, was the
argument which he, that is, Madariaga, mounted in response to Pavolini
when concluding the discussion. Having made mention of the tragic sit-
uation confronting his own country, he issued the following warning:^129
There is, Gentleman, only one possibility on offer when there is no free-
dom of communication of thought, and that is violence. That is the only
means. Who says no to freedom of thought says violence. We are in the
house where people say: ‘Never violence.’ We are in the house where peo-
ple say: ‘Progress is to be found in the method that consists in convincing
and not in vanquishing.’ But if people refuse to admit the pleas by which
we express our thoughts and convictions, if the noose is placed around our
neck, violence is the only possibility on offer in order to be able to speak.^130The interventions of Duhamel, Madariaga and others in response to
Pavolini’s provocation appear to have had their desired effect, as the pro-
ceedings of the conversation record that only one dissenting voice was
raised in connection with the last paragraph of the resolution. Anezsaki
Masaharu, a member of the ICIC and a professor of the science and
(^127) Société des Nations, Institut International de la Coopération Intellectuelle, Entretiens:
Le destin prochain des lettres, 189.
(^128) Ibid.
(^129) Ibid., 195–97.
(^130) Ibid., 197.