Abstract
In 1946, the foundation of UNESCO as a new international organisation acting in the field of education changed the context of the IBE’s activity fundamentally. Thanks to difficult negotiations—they began before UNESCO was set up thanks to the general secretary Marie Butts—the IBE succeeded in remaining autonomous. It became a specialised institution within UNESCO working exclusively on technical problems from a neutral point of view. It maintained its activities, with an enhanced legitimacy which also allowed it to increase the number of its member states and to approach its ideal of universality.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
The IBE emerged relatively unscathed from the Second World War and enjoyed a certain international reputation, thanks in particular to its work on behalf of prisoners of war. These were important assets when it came to dealing with a context of profound change, in which the world’s geopolitical and economic power relations were being reconfigured. A substantial reconfiguration of international organisations accompanied and precipitated its evolution, including the creation in the New York megalopolis of the powerful UN and its multiple bodies, notably UNESCO, putting an end to—and “replacing”—the then discredited LoN and the OIC-IIIC whose cultural missions were entrusted to the UN agency (Image 6.1). Would the small Geneva institution manage to survive, to preserve its autonomy as well as its principles of neutrality and scientificity?
Preparing Negotiations to Remain Autonomous
The Second World War fundamentally changed the face of the world: in addition to geopolitical and economic transformations, new intellectual, cultural and educational issues also came to the fore on the international scene. Convinced of the significance of international collaboration in the field of education in order to maintain peace, the Conference of Allied Ministers (CAME) held a meeting in London in 1942.Footnote 1 As is known, it soon turned its attention towards setting up an international organisation devoted to education and culture.Footnote 2 This prospect radically transformed the situation of the IBE, until then the only intergovernmental organisation entirely dedicated to pedagogy and to the improvement of education systems. Piaget was aware of these negotiations, thanks in particular to Marie Butts—who was remained in London during the war—and he defined the possible positioning of the IBE from the outset, in 1943, by loudly proclaiming the guarantees of objectivity and impartiality that were indispensable for such a body:
What if another organisation were to arise elsewhere, more or less similar to ours? Either it would be inspired, as we are, solely by the desire for objectivity and collaboration, which are indispensable to peace, and we would sooner or later be able to co-ordinate our common efforts, or it would be directed towards other aims and, in the end, we would certainly need an impartial and technical body such as the International Bureau of Education in Geneva. (Piaget, Director’s Report, 1943, p. 16)
From London, the IBE Secretary General Butts became an “involuntary but capable ambassador” (Mylonas, 1976, p. 332). She grew close to the influential people working on what she called the “new world education Authority”.Footnote 3 Among the dozens of contacts she made were the American Grayson Kefauver,Footnote 4 author of the first draft of the statutes of what was to become UNESCO; W.E. Richardson, the right-hand man of the British Minister of Education; and Richard A. Butler, who was also in charge of defining the contours of the new body. Both of them inquired sympathetically about the IBE’s position on the initiative. Butts met with Fred ClarkeFootnote 5 and other members of the NEF, who were also concerned about the role their own institution might play in the nascent UNESCO. The same is true of the IIIC, whose representatives, Butts tells us, aspired to take over the UNESCO secretariat.Footnote 6 The English Clarke advocated that an education office be established in Quebec, as “it would be in America without being in the United States, and therefore without risk of upsetting Latin America”, but “[n]ot in Geneva in any case! The Dominions don’t like Geneva, the USSR even less so”.Footnote 7 Butts noted that this opinion was shared by many, especially as the IBE was perceived as being close to the LoN: “Besides, the United Nations do not like Geneva, because of the LoN and because of Swiss opinion.”Footnote 8 Several CAME members were also reluctant to collaborate with the IBE because of the presence of Axis countries among its members.Footnote 9
As soon as peace was signed, the British political scientist Alfred Zimmern,Footnote 10 who was in charge of the preparatory commission for UNESCO’s founding conference, sent a draft statute to the IBE for comment.Footnote 11 The latter suggested including the possibility of organising technical conferences, calling on specialised institutions for UNESCO and using the model of liaison committees such as those that existed between the IBE and the ILO, on the one hand, and the ICIC, on the other hand, to clarify the nature of its relationship with UNESCO. The written negotiations were accompanied by meetings in London, Geneva, Paris and the United States to test the plausibility of such synergies.Footnote 12 After UNESCO’s constitutive conference in 1946, the IBE took stock and reiterated its conditions, first and foremost its independenceFootnote 13:
All the delegations want a collaboration between the IBE and UNESCO in one form or another […] the IBE naturally has great sympathy for the new Organisation but it must have certain reservations as to the method of integration that may be envisaged. […] a special effort [is needed] on the part of the IBE member countries throughout the interim period, so that the UNESCO preparatory committee will find itself in the presence of a body in full vitality and with an independence that will enable it to act on an equal footing.
In order to attest to this full vitality, the IBE’s energies were invested in several areas in the immediate post-war period:
-
Continued involvement of the IBE in the educational reconstruction effort that would be dear to UNESCO;Footnote 14
-
Seeking and obtaining official institutional and financial support from the Swiss Confederation;Footnote 15
-
Continuing the sale of stamps, with a surcharge to raise money and increase the IBE’s visibility;Footnote 16
-
As early as April 1946, organisation of the XIth ICPE to which representatives of the ministries of education of all countries of the world were invited;Footnote 17
-
Continuing other activities undertaken earlier, documentations, exhibitions, publication of Bulletins and Yearbooks, international surveys and ICPEs (Image 6.2).
Granting the IBE “All the Honours as UNESCO’s ‘Father’ and Assigning it the Role of ‘Little Brother’”
The IBE was therefore ready for negotiations about its own fate, which became more intense during 1946.Footnote 18 There were two opposing views. One, favoured by the UNESCO representatives, envisaged a rapid absorption, with the IBE becoming a research institute integrated into UNESCO. The other, defended in the IBE memorandum, proposed that the IBE should become an independent technical institution, collaborating with UNESCO on specific topics:
While it is agreed that UNESCO’s field of action should be as broad as possible, it is also agreed that UNESCO should share its tasks with other public international institutions – institutions that would thus become specialised to the second degreeFootnote 19 – which would thus complement UNESCO’s direct action.Footnote 20
During the negotiations, the IBE respondents accepted no compromise and sharpened their weapons: “If things do not improve by then, we will be able to fight in November”, said Piaget.Footnote 21 After bitter discussions, which came up against UNESCO’s injunctions to its own delegates and the determination of the IBE, a transitional solution was found: to entrust the joint IBE/UNESCO commission, provided for in the talks, with the task of specifying the terms of the link. This was in fact the path recommended by the IBE and which was implemented in 1947. In a letter dated 3 January 1946, Rosselló wrote to Bovet:
I am sending you herewith the draft provisional agreement which we have obtained after a very fierce struggle with the representatives of UNESCO. […] We are attempting a very difficult operation, that of seeing the IBE, to whom all the honours of the “father” of UNESCO are to be granted, now become its “little brother”.Footnote 22
The path proposed by the IBE was stabilised in the 1952 agreement. “The IBE is, along with the United Nations, the only intergovernmental organisation with which UNESCO has a formal agreement”, explained UNESCO’s Deputy Director Jean ThomasFootnote 23 at the first ICPE jointly convened by the two organisations in 1947 (p. 20).
“A trial marriage and a marriage of convenience” stated Piaget, the pragmatic diplomat (ICPE, 1948, p. 21); a union that was also a love match, according to the UNESCO Deputy Director General, Clarence Edward Beeby. A long engagement, one might retort, since the marriage would be validated five years after it had been tried out and renewed from year to year, in order for both parties to have time to appreciate its advantages; and moreover, the union then gained a clause allowing its non-renewal on the simple and free renunciation by one of the parties. It was as a technical agency working closely with UNESCO that the IBE found its place, which it occupied until the end of the 1960s. Considered as the “precursor of UNESCO”Footnote 24 in the field of education, it thus became part of the complex UN system. UNESCO carried out direct actions in education in several countries, guided by the concept of “fundamental education”.Footnote 25 It also had specialised second-level institutions covering various fields (cinema, libraries, adult education, etc.), including the IBE for its activities in favour of public education with a view to comparative education.Footnote 26
The IBE maintained its mechanisms: Yearbook, Bulletin, international surveys, ICPE leading to recommendations, as well as its permanent exhibition and collection of works, that is, school textbooks, books on psychology and pedagogy, legal and administrative texts concerning education in the world. Its work remained exclusively technical, as its respondents tirelessly pointed out; the principle of universality governed the collaboration with states, preserving the opportunity to have as partners countries initially ineligible for the UN and UNESCO.Footnote 27
This collaboration gave the Bureau a new scope in terms of legitimacy, representativeness of the ICPEs and inclusion in wider networks of relations. The IBE retained its Geneva headquarters, managed its budget with relative autonomy, had an independent management, recruited its own staff—raised to the status of international civil servants once all was stabilised—and maintained its openness to any country wishing to join the Bureau.
However, this autonomy was relative. The IBE-UNESCO Footnote 28 agreement made provision for a “joint commission” composed of three representatives of UNESCO, on the one hand, and the IBE, on the other hand. It determined the tasks common to both bodies, and divided the others, to avoid any duplication. More specifically, it drew up the list of countries and organisations to be invited to the ICPEs, with the final decision resting with the institutions that made up the commission, that is, the governing bodies of the IBE and UNESCO respectively; it drew up the agenda of the ICPEs, selecting from among the investigations carried out by the IBE those that would be discussed; it listed the tasks that the IBE had to carry out on behalf of UNESCO, particularly in the field of documentation; it managed the distribution of financial charges and controlled the budgets.
The collaboration allowed the IBE to stabilise and increase the number of countries participating in its surveys and conferences, also carried out under the auspices of UNESCO. It should be noted that the choice of themes for the surveys to be carried out was essentially defined by the IBE’s bodies, that is, the IBE’s Executive Committee and Council, as well as the Secretariat, including its management, which was still entrusted to Piaget and Rosselló.
The IBE seemed to be developing harmoniously, following an apparently perfectly functioning system. But what happened in the mid-1950s, when world geopolitics was once again being reconfigured and the number of autonomous countries likely to join the IBE was increasing?
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
See her numerous letters and four Reports on the IBE in Geneva, in relation to the International Education Organisation envisaged in England and the United States. 160_Correspondance-51, 35_A-1-79-973, A-IBE.
- 4.
Dorn (2006) uses in the title of his biography the epithet bestowed on Kefauver: “the World’s Schoolmaster”. Kefauver was already in contact with the IBE beforehand.
- 5.
- 6.
France would not be successful in its bid to make the IIIC the secretariat of the future organisation, but it would be given the honour of hosting the headquarters of UNESCO in Paris (Maurel, 2006).
- 7.
Third Report on the IBE of Geneva, in relation to the proposed International Education Organisation in England and the United States, 24.1.1945. 35_A-1-79-973, A-IBE.
- 8.
Letter from M. Butts to R. Gampert, 31.3.1945. Hamori collection, AIJJR.
- 9.
IBE strove to remain neutral during the war and did not collaborate with any of the belligerent countries. Butts later retorted that Germany’s participation was through the Zentralinstitut für Erziehung: “there is a nuance” (Butt’s Third Report, p. 20).
- 10.
On Zimmern’s role, see Toye and Toye (2010); more generally, on his thinking, see Baji (2021). As a contributor to the founding of the LoN, he is remembered for his wise counsel to the builders of the IBE. For an analysis of its activity in international forums, see Morefield (2005) and Mazower (2009).
- 11.
Letter from A. Zimmern to the IBE, 4.8.1945; Observations made by the IBE on the Draft Statute of the UNESCO, October 1945. 35_A-1-79-973, A-IBE.
- 12.
Report on a trip to London during the preparatory work for the Inter-Allied Conference on Intellectual Co-operation and Education, submitted by J. Piaget to the Federal Political Department, September 1945. Piaget also received a mandate from the Department to report on his observations. 35_A-1-79-973, A-IBE.
- 13.
Report on the conference to create a United Nations organisation which took place in London from 1 to 16 November 1945, confidential copy, sent to the Federal Political Department and the Department of the Interior by Messrs Piaget and Weiglé. 35_A-1-79-973, A-IBE.
- 14.
Statement by Miss Butts to the Technical Sub-Committee of the UNESCO Preparatory Commission in which she presents the various activities undertaken by the IBE, already during the war, in particular the Intellectual Aid Service for Prisoners of War (Boss & Brylinski, 2020). 35_A-1-79-973, A-IBE.
- 15.
See part III “Considerations on the relationship between Switzerland and the IBE” in the Conference Report (note above).
- 16.
Letter from the State Councillor A. Lachenal to the Director of the Postal Service, 20.3.1944; 68_A-4-3-4-955, A-IBE.
- 17.
It was given special prominence by celebrating at the same time the 200th birthday of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, who was then one of the most renowned educationalists in the world.
- 18.
See a list of early contacts in the Memorandum on UNESCO-IBE relations, written by UNESCO respondents, July 1946. 35_A.1.79.1044, A-IBE. We include here elements of Hofstetter and Schneuwly (2020, 2022) and refer to Brylinski (2022) for a more detailed analysis of the socio-political negotiations and issues.
- 19.
As UNESCO was recognised as a first-degree specialised agency in relation to the UN, the IBE would therefore be one of the “second-degree specialised agencies”.
- 20.
Memorandum for use in negotiations between the IBE and UNESCO, drawn up by the IBE Preparatory Commission in July 1946. 35_A.1.79.1044, A-IBE.
- 21.
Letter from J. Piaget to P. Carneiro, Brazilian representative at UNESCO, unconditional support for the IBE position, 25.7.1946. 35_ A.1.79.1044, A-IBE. Piaget also mentions the possibility of obtaining new memberships to strengthen the IBE.
- 22.
Letter from P. Rosselló to P. Bovet, 3.1.1946. 160_correspondence-46 A-IBE.
- 23.
It should be remembered that Jean Thomas was previously Deputy Executive Secretary of the UNESCO Preparatory Commission (Maurel, 2006).
- 24.
This term is used in the Memorandum on the relations between UNESCO and the IBE, written by UNESCO respondents. 35_A.1.79.1044, A-IBE. The formula of Evans—new Director General of UNESCO in 1953—goes in the same direction: “The International Bureau of Education is older than UNESCO, and it contributed in a large part to the creation of the latter” (ICPE, 1953, p. 24). And also, in 1959, that of the Director of UNESCO, Maheu, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the IBE as an intergovernmental organisation: “Since before the war, at a time when many doubted that education could be a matter for international and even intergovernmental co-operation, the Bureau has shown not only that such collaboration was possible, but also that it was useful and even necessary, thus justifying, before the letter of the law, a certain aspect of UNESCO” (ICPE, 1959, p. 34). According to Seth Spaulding, the IBE would even be one of the reasons for the existence of UNESCO; for this author, it would indeed be “Jean Piaget’s reluctance to place the IBE directly under the responsibility of the United Nations in 1945 which favoured the creation of UNESCO”, quoted in Maurel (2006, p. 36, n. 7). See Renoliet (1999), whose work on the ICIC considers it to be the precursor of UNESCO. His book titles the ICIC as “the forgotten UNESCO”, “forgetting”, one might say, another “precursor” of UNESCO, namely the IBE.
- 25.
- 26.
The document “Domains not touched by the IBE”, given to the negotiator of the attachment of the IBE, Wilson, Deputy Secretary General of UNESCO, in March 1946 during his visit to Geneva, circumscribes the “more specific activities” of the IBE. 35_A.1.79.1044, A-IBE.
- 27.
Spain and Portugal, for example, affiliated to the IBE, could not initially be members of UNESCO. However, we shall see that the IBE would be limited in the application of this principle of universality for certain communist countries.
- 28.
35_A-1-79-1333a–b, A-IBE.
References
Aldrich, R. (2009). The new education and the Institute of Education, University of London, 1919–1945. Paedagogica Historica, 45(45), 485–502.
Baji, T. (2021). The international thought of Alfred Zimmern: Classicism, zionism and the shadow of commonwealth. Springer Nature.
Boel, J. (2016). UNESCO’s fundamental education program, 1946–1958: Vision, actions and impact. In P. Duendahl (Ed.), A history of UNESCO. Global actions and impacts (pp. 153–168). Palgrave Macmillan.
Boss, C., & Brylinski, É. (2020). Le Service d’aide intellectuelle aux prisonniers de guerre du Bureau international d’éducation (1939–1945). In R. Hofstetter & J. Droux (Eds.), Internationalismes éducatifs entre débats et combats (fin du 19e—premier 20e siècle) (pp. 243–276). Peter Lang.
Brylinski, É. (2022). Justifier le BIE et son expertise face à l’UNESCO. In R. Hofstetter & Érhise, Le Bureau international d’éducation, matrice de l’internationalisme éducatif (premier 20e siècle) (pp. 167–200). Peter Lang.
Desgrandchamps, M.-L., & Matasci, D. (Eds.). (2020). De la ‘mission civilisatrice’ à l’aide internationale dans les pays du Sud: acteurs, pratiques et reconfigurations au XXe siècle. Histoire@Politique. Politique, culture, société, 41.
Dorn, C. (2006). ‘The World’s Schoolmaster’: Educational reconstruction, Grayson Kefauver, and the founding of UNESCO, 1942–46. History of Education, 35(3), 297–320.
Duedahl, P. (Ed.). (2016). A history of UNESCO: Global actions and impacts. Springer.
Hofstetter, R., & Schneuwly, B. (2020). L’objectivité et la neutralité comme ressorts de l’internationalisme éducatif ? Le Bureau international d’éducation. (1925–1968). Relations internationales, 183, 17–39.
Hofstetter, R., & Schneuwly, B. (2022). Piaget, diplomat of educational internationalism. From the International Bureau of Education to UNESCO (1929–1968). Paedagogica Historica, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2022.2052732
Intrator, M. (2015). Educators across borders: The Conference of Allied Ministers of Education, 1942–45. In D. Plesch & T. G. Weiss (Eds.), Wartime origins and the future United Nations (pp. 76–96). Routledge.
Lerch, J., & Buckner, E. (2018). From education for peace to education in conflict: Changes in UNESCO discourse, 1945–2015. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 16(1), 27–48.
Matasci, D. (2023). Internationaliser l’éducation. La France, l’UNESCO et la fin des empires coloniaux en Afrique (1945–1961). Presses universitaires du Septentrion.
Maurel, C. (2006). L’UNESCO de 1945 à 1974 [Unpublished doctoral thesis, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris]. https://hal.science/tel-00848712v1
Maurel, C. (2010). Histoire de l’UNESCO. Les trente premières années. 1945–1974. L’Harmattan.
Mazower, M. (2009). No enchanted palace. The end of empire and the ideological origins of the United Nations. Princeton University Press.
McCulloch, G. (2014). Fred Clarke and the internationalisation of studies and research in education. Paedagogica Historica, 50(1–2), 123–137.
Morefield, J. (2005). Covenants without swords: Liberal internationalism and the spirit of empire. Princeton University Press.
Mylonas, D. (1976). La Conférence des ministres alliés de l’éducation (Londres 1942–1945): De la coopération éducative dans l’Europe en guerre à la création d’une organisation internationale. Bruylant.
Renoliet, J.-J. (1999). L’UNESCO oubliée: la Société des nations et la coopération intellectuelle, 1919–1946. Publications de la Sorbonne.
Toye, J., & Toye, R. (2010). One world, two cultures? Alfred Zimmern, Julian Huxley and the ideological origins of UNESCO. History, 95(319), 308–331.
Watras, J. (2010). UNESCO’s program of fundamental education, 1946–1959. History of Education, 39(2), 219–237.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hofstetter, R., Schneuwly, B. (2024). “A Marriage of Convenience” with UNESCO?. In: The International Bureau of Education (1925-1968). Global Histories of Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41308-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41308-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-41307-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-41308-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)