Paul raises some interesting points.

My main point was simply to sketch in IALA's words what they were up to
in the years leading up to 1945 and show how Dr. Gode was legitimately
operating within that framework. At that time the opinions of Jespersen
were mainstream among linguists interested in interlinguistics.  Gode's
argument is that language spreads via cultural forces and is sustained
thereby. The western languages were spoken by the peoples at that time
and until very recently mostly involved in "international" activity.
So, if there were a need for an auxiliary international language it
was mostly in the spheres occupied by western peoples and their civilization.

I think I skipped over this paragraph in the report right after Jespersen's

"In addition to the fact that at this time in the history of the world,
the languages of Europe, from the linguistic point of view, offer the
greatest supply of international words, there is another practical
reason for considering them rather than the Oriental languages as the
main sources for an auxiliary language vocabulary. The auxiliary language
movement originated in Europe.  The forty odd languages of Western
Europe which complicate the free exchange of ideas amongt different national
groups present as great a problem today as they did when the movement came to
popular attention more than half a century ago. The growing interest in the
auxiliary language idea heightened by the war, the possibilities of
practical promotion of an auxiliary language in Europe immediately after
the war, make the concentration upon European languages a logical one."

While English has largely satisfied this role for an auxiliary language
for Europe, whether it would be politically acceptable to various national
groups in the developing European Union, still raises the possibility that
Interlingua would be a logical solution to the auxiliary language problem
of the European Union. It would be especially important that the language
be capable of having political terminology that closely parallels that in
the ethnic languages, just for administrative and legal purposes. There
would be fewer misunderstandings when familiar terminology is used.

Stan Mulaik