by John Roberts
It was a good idea, a very good idea. As the then Clerk to the British Parliamentary Group for World Government expressed it pithily: "If we can't agree to do anything together, perhaps we can agree to do nothing together." The plan was for a World Holiday, a Day when we could celebrate our togetherness as a human species, when we could make a splash with all of us doing something to show human solidarity. So why has it taken so long?
It was the brain-child of an American educator, Dorothy Schneider of St Louis, Missouri. She spent years of her time - and a good deal of money - pushing the idea that we could all do a small thing - agree to take a holiday at the same time - in order to make a big thing, a step to world peace. She began some 40 years ago and by the end of the sixties her valiant efforts were bearing fruit.
Dorothy began by quoting President Eisenhower "I think that people want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." Then she declared that a world holiday would help us to reach that goal. "The atmosphere created will inspire world leaders to increase their efforts to avoid war and to find alternative ways of dealing with difference." Sure thing, but we still do not have that single holiday.
By 1971 the proposal had gained enormous support. Organizations all over the world had agreed that it was a splendid idea and had passed resolutions in favor. A horde of eminent persons, United Nations Association branches, trade unions, all sorts of voluntary societies had discussed the suggestion and agreed with it. It had gone to the UN General Assembly and passed as a formal resolution there in favor of such a World Holiday. In short, it had almost universal approval as a positive step in the way of demonstrating human solidarity.
So all that was needed was the agreement of the Security Council, which could add the force of the greatest military powers in the world to agree on something that would neither weaken them nor in any way diminish their capacity to continue to run the world - more or less - as they chose. But they chose not to help on its way such an inocuous means of showing solidarity and giving a boost to human unity. Because the nation-states, particularly the governments of members of the UN Security Council are more interested in retaining the power in their own grasp and not letting it pass to the body that represents, however faintly, the ideal of human unity.
Once again, it is the nation-states, and particularly
their governments, have represent the greatest danger to the human future,
all seeking the right to determine "the national interest" and as a consequence
failing to serve the human interest.
***