In the early 1950s, several projects were launched by the six founding member states. The best-known of these, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), was a great success. Plans for a European Health Community, proposed by Robert Schuman, did not make it past the preparatory conference of 12 December 1952. The European Defence Community (EDC) was the subject of a treaty signed in Paris on 24 May 1952, then ratified by 5 of the 6 member states: it was rejected by the French National Assembly on 30 August 1954. The European Political Community (EPC) was to be the political arm of military information; it was set out in article 38 of the EDC treaty. The text of the EPC treaty was submitted to the government on 12 March 1953; it died, and was buried alongside, the EDC.
The text was produced by the Parliamentary assembly of the enlarged ECSC (ad hoc assembly), mandated by the ministers of the Six on 10 September 1952 and chaired by Paul-Henri Spaak. It began by describing itself as a European community of a supranational nature. In his reference work, Bino Olivi synthetically provided clarifications (our translation): ‘the institutional structure of the political community provided for a two-chamber system (one chamber elected by universal suffrage and a Senate appointed by the national parliaments and invested with equivalent legislative powers). As for the executive power, this would have been exercised by a European Executive Council with a President, appointed by the Senate, who would appoint the other members, and by a council of national ministers. Finally, provision was made for a court of justice and an economic and social consultative committee.’ (L’Europe difficile, Folio, 2001, p. 50).
In his Mémoires, Spaak vented his frustration (our translation): ‘the courage of the ministers cannot go on for much longer. They have examined the draft treaty twice, in Baden-Baden on 7 and 8 August 1953 and in The Hague on 27 and 28 October. They created a committee tasked with reporting back to them at a conference to be held in Brussels in March 1954. This conference was postponed. Mendès-France came to power, the EDC was doomed. Article 38 was caught up in disaster and the work of the ad hoc assembly thrown into the back of a drawer, never to be seen again. Thus ended a great effort and a great hope’ (Combats inachevés, t. 2, Fayard, p. 60).
Monnet drew more optimistic conclusions from this episode (our translation): ‘one will inevitably find many things from the first attempt at a European Political Community in the subsequent ones. One day, one of them will align fully with circumstances and will be the right one’ (Mémoires, Fayard, 1969, p. 462).
This swift detour into the distant past may give us some useful food for thought. Primo, the communities were in the fields of health, defence and political union: does that ring a bell? Those visionaries of yesteryear were dealing with the same problems we are dealing with today, with an obvious degree of urgency. If their proposals had become reality, Europeans would be feeling better and living in a more respected framework.
Secundo, the European army was considered necessary as the geopolitical context was dangerous (Stalinist ambitions, Korean War, uncertainty over the security of Germany); mutatis mutandis, the same is true today. In particular, the unified defence project coincided historically with the sole effort to create a unified European political power. Was it the hidden design of the ‘European Political Community’ that was offered up to us a few weeks ago? That would be a turn-up for the books.
Tertio, since the early days of European integration, all communities, whether they came to fruition for fell by the wayside, were supposed to be based on a treaty and a specific, complete institutional architecture. This was the case until European Community was absorbed into the European Union, with the Treaty of Lisbon.
Today, the war in Ukraine, new Russian expansionism and the applications for EU membership made by Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, whilst enlargement to the Western Balkans is experiencing a frustrating degree of stagnation, have re-awoken various imaginations to translate a new geopolitical reality into a broader system than the EU.
On 19 April of this year, in an open letter published by the Italian daily newspaper Corriere Della Sera, the former President of the Italian Council, Enrico Letta, now the President of the Institut Jacques Delors and Secretary of the Italian Democratic Party, proposed the immediate creation of a European Confederation, made up of the 27 countries of the EU plus Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Kosovo, giving a total of 36 countries. Far from presenting an alternative to EU accession, this construction would allow current non-members to be involved in a political architecture in which they can speak on an equal footing. It would symbolise the political unity of the continent, whilst making up for the frustrations born of lengthy accession negotiations.
A Confederation is a form of union or association in which the state parties retain their sovereignty. Two French Presidents have used this term about Europe. Georges Pompidou, when asked about his future vision of the EEC. And, more importantly, in 1989, François Mitterrand, proposing a broad ‘European Confederation’ made up of the Europe of the Communities, the central and eastern European countries (CEECs) and Russia (from Saint Petersburg to the Gulf of Anadyr!). This idea did not go the distance, not just for geographical reasons, but, in particular, political ones: the CEECs saw it as a manoeuvre to dodge their accession and keeping them in bed with the empire from which they had just freed themselves.
Incidentally, a Confederation must stand on legal bases. Switzerland does. The Helvetic constitution, founded in 1848 and revised several times since, establishes relations between the State, the cantons and communes and is, moreover, described as ‘federal’. A number of confederations have effectively become federations (United States, Canada, etc...), so much so that there are no real confederations anywhere on earth.
Enrico Letta argued the case for his project in the media. Interviewed by the Belgian daily newspaper Le Soir on 6 May, he clarified his thinking (our translation): ‘I envisage two phases. The first on the model of the G20, which did not come about from a treaty: it is a political agreement between the 20 constituent countries. This means that we can immediately – I mean: the day after the end of the war, which I hope will be as soon as possible, in the autumn… – we can hold the meeting of the Thirty-Six in Brussels. And a second phase: the conclusion of a treaty ‘lite’ between the Thirty-Six and managed by ‘Brussels’. This treaty could be signed before the end of the year and ratified by each country in just a few months, no more than that’.
In Strasbourg on 9 May, the presentation of the results of the Conference on the Future of Europe, President Macron proposed the creation of a ‘European Political Community’ (EPC) made up of the EU countries and all non-members on the continent sharing the same fundamental values (in other words those wishing to join the EU, such as the Balkan states, but also the United Kingdom). The aim would be to ‘find a new space for political cooperation, security, cooperation on energy matters, transport, investment in infrastructure, movement of people, particularly young people’ (see EUROPE 12948/3). The idea did not come from the aforementioned Conference and made no reference to the Letta proposal. It was also silent on the matter of the Council of Europe, already smarting from its absence from the Conference, even though its parliamentary assembly adopted an important resolution on 26 April calling for a reinforcement of the partnership between this institution and the European Union, more important than ever due to the war in Ukraine (see EUROPE 12939/18). (To be continued).
Renaud Denuit