424 J.-A. PEMBERTON
policies of political neutrality and universalism that gave rise to such ludi-
crous spectacles as debating ‘free thought all over the world’ with a rep-
resentative of Fascist Italy. In this context, one might usefully observe
that a no less ludricous spectacle was that of debating peaceful change
with a representative of Nazi Germany.^299
Without disputing the force of the criticisms of the ICO’s stance of
political neutrality, it is nonetheless important to consider the wider
setting in which the ICO operated. In a speech given in the midst of
the proceedings of the Institute on World Organization in Washington
in September 1941, Bonnet declared that peace probably could have
been preserved had a ‘wholehearted application’ of the covenant been
favoured at the appropriate time. However, its full application was hin-
dered, Bonnet declared, due to the ‘acceptance by governments of the
idea of the League’s neutrality, and the inclination on the part of too
many people to believe that...[the League]...could display a so-called
impartiality in the face of aggression.’ He added that this acceptance and
inclination ‘was bound to be fatal to the international organization.’^300
It would appear that in his speech, Bonnet was implicitly acknowledg-
ing that acceptance of the idea of League neutrality and the inclination
to believe that it could display impartiality in the face of aggression had
influenced the actions of its intellectual organ and that, as a result, the
ICO’s reputation had suffered. This is evidenced by the fact that Bonnet
went on to point out that the LON’s intellectual organisation was ‘not
neutral about the war in Europe’. Bonnet noted that when the European
crisis ‘reached its climax, there was no meeting of the Assembly and the
Council was not convoked in spite of the attack against one of the mem-
ber states’. He pointed out that in contrast with this inaction on the part
of the League’s two deliberative bodies, the IIIC immediately swung into
action: it proceeded to consult the ICIC, that is, its governing body, ‘all
the available the national committees [of intellectual cooperation] and
many of the other national or international groups collaborating with the
League as to the conditions under which it should continue its work and
how it could openly take a stand against aggression’.^301
(^299) Ibid., 300.
(^300) Bonnet, Intellectual Co-operation in World Organization, 21.
(^301) Ibid., 22.