406 J.-A. PEMBERTON
CAME’s immediate agenda concerned the replacement of those edu-
cational and cultural institutions and resources that had been deliberately
and systematically decimated in parts of Europe and Asia by the Axis pow-
ers. Richard A. Johnson, a youthful American diplomat based in London
and a participant in the meetings of CAME, observed in 1946 that from
the very outset CAME’s members ‘groped toward a broader conception
of their functions’.^235 Cassin, for example, had advocated from the time of
the first meeting that CAME should be guided by the general principles
underpinning the IIIC in Paris.^236
Renoliet contends that Cassin’s advocacy in this regard, along with his
strong defence of the IIIC in the context of CAME, reflected a desire to
maintain the ‘position of Paris as the capital of intellectual co-operation’.^237
Cassin, however, was not the only CAME member urging the cause of the
IIIC or, at least, the principles on which it was based. F. R. Cowell, a British
Foreign Office official who had participated in CAME, later recorded that
many of its members still had fresh memories of both the ICIC and the
IIIC and that they ‘looked forward vaguely to their revival’ even though
they well understood that the work of these institutions had not been sup-
ported as ‘enthusiastically’ and ‘widely’ as it should have been.^238
Beyond this, there was a growing conviction that it was necessary to
look beyond the immediate demands of intellectual and cultural recon-
struction: CAME members understood that in order to deal with the
‘generation of warped minds’ which was part of the Nazi legacy and in
order to prevent such systematic warping of minds in the future, ‘a contin-
uing long-range program would be needed to open windows in the minds
of men to the cultural heritage of other nations and to promote respect for
the individual.’^239 Thus, the question of mental and moral disarmament,
(^235) Johnson, ‘The Origin of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization,’ 441–42. See also Julian Huxley, ‘Science and the United Nations,’ Nature
156, no. 3967 (1945): 553–56, 553. For Richard A. Johnson, see Raymond E. Wanner,
‘The United States and UNESCO: Beginnings (1945) and New Beginnings (2005),’ 6,
http://www.channelingreality.com/UN/UNESCO/UNESCO_Pre_Founding_History.pdf.
(^236) Sewell, UNESCO and World Politics, 37.
(^237) Renoliet, L’Unesco oubliée, 160.
(^238) F. R. Cowell, ‘Planning the Organisation of UNESCO, 1942–1946: A Personal Record,’
Journal of World History 10, no. 1 (1966): 210–36, 219.
(^239) Brenda M. H. Tripp, ‘UNESCO in Perspective,’ International Conciliation 30, no.
497 (1954): 323–83, 335–36. See also Laves and Thomson, UNESCO: Purpose, Progress,
Prospects, 5. This concern would be repeatedly expressed at the London Conference of
November 1945 which established UNESCO.