FSCJ professor: The need for friendship, peace and education in a changing world

“Why not have friends in a changing world?” was the theme of a talk delivered by French diplomat Gerard de la Villesbrunne at Florida Junior College (now Florida State College at Jacksonville) in 1967. The lecture summary, published in Alpha, the students’ college newspaper, caught my attention recently as I was doing a survey of the digital archive of the college.

Though delivered 56 years ago, the lecture is relevant for our times, and the title itself is appealing. While living in an increasingly globalized world facilitated by technology and media, we also witness a counter trend of “othering,” polarization and aggressive nationalism worldwide. Hence the diplomat’s emphasis on friendship in a changing world — a reference to the evolving politics of the Cold War era — is especially applicable to today’s world.

Debidatta Mahapatra: We need Jefferson’s ideas on religious pluralism, now more than ever

FSCJ panel: On Russian invasion of Ukraine, 'Putin personally feels threated by freedom'

Letters: JEA doing its part for Northeast Florida’s future with diverse energy strategy

In his speech, de la Villesbrunne pointed out the increasing emphasis “on atoms for peace and on educating the people.” He made this statement at the height of the Cold War when the arms race was considered normal. That was when the two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, were rapidly building their arsenals of nuclear weapons.

The idea of developing nuclear weapons as a deterrence against possible aggression from the Soviet Union was articulated well by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Though he himself served as a general in the Second World War, Eisenhower was deeply perturbed by the harmful effects of weapons of mass destruction, as were clearly visible in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Eisenhower adopted a moral approach even while developing a prudent policy. It was this difficult combination of idealism and realism that prompted the president to explore prospects of peace in an era of arms buildup. In a 1953 speech, he said “… the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death but consecrated to his life.”

Agreements like the Non-Proliferation Treaty were a result of Eisenhower’s vision that nuclear weapons should never be used but serve as a deterrent. As was well-known, the Cold War ended without firing a shot (in the words of Margaret Thatcher).

De la Villesbrunne’s speech also implied that atomic power could be harnessed for peaceful purposes. In fact, France harnesses about 70% of electricity from nuclear energy. His emphasis on education — including insight into peaceful uses of nuclear power — is significant in the 21st-century world. The prospects of a return to the Cold War (and possible nuclear conflagration with Ukraine as the theater) have increased in recent months.

The diplomat also emphasized friendship in the globalized world. Referring to French culture, he noted that “a good friend, whether he is right or not, has the right to speak up.” He went further by adding, “A real French friend will tell the French when they are wrong in interfering with the affairs of others.”

This message is quite appropriate for our polarizing world. States perpetually fear other states and live in what is known as a security dilemma, as it is called by political scientists. As the diplomat alluded, interference in other’s affairs has become the norm rather than the exception.

Most of the conflicts in the recent past happened because of the interventionist policy of powerful states. For example, the conflict in Ukraine started due to Russia’s invasion, without taking into consideration what was best for Ukraine. The conflict has not been resolved by the intervention of the U.S. nor its allies. Efforts by international organizations (like the United Nations) have not succeeded, mainly due to squabbling between major powers about possible outcomes of the conflict.

The date on which de la Villesbrunne delivered his lecture, Oct. 24, was quite significant as the United Nations was established on that same day in 1945. The UN was founded by victorious powers after World War II to ensure international peace and security through means of dialogue and cooperation. However, the developments over the past seven decades have shown mixed results.

The conflicts in Syria, Ukraine and other parts of the world have challenged the mandated role of the UN as a peacemaker. True, the UN played important roles in addressing some conflicts, but it has not been successful in many places.

In his speech, de la Villesbrunne also made a case that economic interdependence is key to developing peace and friendly relations among nations of the world. He referred to the nascent European integration process and developments like the common European market (which later resulted in the European Union). He argued that a peaceful Europe — and by extension the world — could be possible through interdependence and collaboration.

The lecture of the diplomat about peace, education, friendship and non-intervention, though delivered almost six decades ago, resonates deeply in our contemporary world.

Debidatta A. Mahapatra, Ph.D., is a professor of political science at Florida State College at Jacksonville.

This guest column is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of the Times-Union. We welcome a diversity of opinions.

This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: Cold War-era lecture on global relations still has relevance today