140 J.-A. PEMBERTON
questions which without doubt would arise in the context of the ISC’s
deliberations in Paris concerning raw materials, markets, over-population
and colonies. He then stated the following:
There also, and with no little difficulty, we endeavoured to formulate sug-
gestions for the peaceful settlement of international problems, in accord-
ance with the right which all peoples have to justice and, above all, to life.
This will also be your task here. You will not, however, work—as we did in
the United States—amid the marvellously peaceful and serene surround-
ings of the Rocky Mountains; but here, in France, and in this vibrating city
of Paris which welcomes you, you will have as an incentive to your aspira-
tions and hopes, the setting—which, we believe, is nearing completion—of
a manifestation to which all the nations of the world have contributed their
genius to extol the glory of the twofold field of science and art. A favour-
able international atmosphere would therefore seem to permeate your
labours. Humanity thanks you in advance for the efforts you are about to
make in the cause of justice and peace.^186During the course of the ISC’s collective research into peaceful
change which had been launched following its conference on collective
security in London in 1935 based on a decision of that conference, there
had been attempts in certain quarters to broaden the enquiry to encom-
pass the grievances of small, weaker states and not just those of strong,
military powers. Over the protests of some such as Zimmern and despite
‘reluctance on the part of others,’ the organisers of the inquiry into
peaceful change were allowed to largely confine it to ‘situations generally
believed to present the contingent danger of war’; in effect, this meant
that the focus of research was directed towards the supposed grievances
of Italy, Japan and, above all, Germany.^187 That the de facto objective of
the conference, at least in the eyes of some, was to find ways of inducing
these states to feel less aggrieved in order that a clash of arms might be
(^186) Ibid., 605–06.
(^187) Chalmers Wright, Population and Peace, 12–3. Zimmern stated that the question of
the revision of Article 19 of the covenant was ‘not brought up because there are a num-
ber of countries whose grievances do not secure proper recognition. It is brought up
because there are certain powerful countries, who are inclined to make us feel that if they
are not allowed to have their own way, they will find their way in some other manner. The
plain word to apply to that is blackmail.’ Bourquin, ed., ‘Prevention of War: Discussion,’
Collective Security, 280.