The true aims of the 1950 initiative. The symposium organised at the European Economic and Social Committee to commemorate the expiry of the ECSC Treaty has the great merit of distancing itself from the description of the first European Community as simply "technical and economic cooperation" (the sadly famous definition of the "Laeken Declaration") to recognise its deep political and ethical significance. The ECSC aimed at reconciliation and peace - Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, together with the other participating countries, created a supranational authority for the first time, whose decisions were binding on national authorities under the control of a Parliamentary Assembly that went on to become the elected European Parliament. Saying today that this was done to favour the industries in question is wholly false - most of the industrial leaders opposed the ECSC's High Authority (read for example, in Vincent Dujardin's book on Jean Duvieusart, the first President of the ECSC's Council of Ministers, about the battle waged by Belgian coalfields against the Schuman Plan, and the 1951 speech by Max Nokin, President of the Société Générale de Belgique lambasting "total subjection to irresponsible power", anticipating the ideas of the French "sovreignists" in their opposition to European institutions today).
Putting steel in common back then meant stripping the marrow from the arms industry, and hence of war and nationalist and revenge tendencies. But I won't dwell on this since I said what I had to say to mark the most recent commemoration of the Schuman Declaration (see my 14 May 2002 column). Tuesday's orators expressed more eloquently than I could the true meaning of what happened in 1950. The President of the Economic and Social Committee, Göke Frerichs, put Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman's initiative in its rightful place, along with the how Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi, Paul-Henri Spaak, Joseph Luns and Joseph Beck responded, saying it was essentially an "ethical project" covering peace, solidarity between participating nations and freedom. Hence it was "an eminently political project" considered by its authors (as shown by the documents) as "a first step in the federation of Europe". The union of Europe already has a history and Frerichs regretted that the European institutions had not yet developed the art of living with this history, of cultivating it; today's politicians sometimes giving the impression of thinking they are the inventors of political Europe.
Give meaning to one's own existence. Three great "eye-witness" reports followed about the birth of the ECSC, blowing some of the idealism and moral tension into the room that must have existed half a century ago at the beginning of the project. See Europe of 24 July, pp 11/12, for the address by Max Kohnstamm, Secretary of the ECSC High Authority at its foundation. It is difficult to summarise any idea of the emotions raised when listening to his speech. Kohnstamm said that during the War he had become aware of how fragile civilisation was and how it was possible to give meaning to one's own existence. These two ideas are difficult to explain to young people, although it is obvious that the Nazis had gnawed at the basis of European civilisation and that choosing peace and freedom means "giving meaning to one's own existence". Defending true European values is equally relevant today. Max Kohnstamm stressed the revolutionary character of the enterprise, the need to grasp that the guilt of individual criminals did not make an entire nation collectively guilty (this understanding was required in order to restore contact with the Germans). He said that the ECSC Treaty already included the three vital characteristics of an efficiently operating institution - no right of veto for any Member State, financial autonomy (thanks to the European tax on coal and steel production which made speculation about "just returns" impossible - this won applause from the audience) and solidarity between Member States, an indispensable element for forming a true community.
I would like to return to one aspect of the speech by Fritz Hellwig (former Member of the High Authority) - his account of how Jean Monnet defended the idea of political equality for Germany from the start. In the preparatory work, both the US and the UK, as members of the Allies that had won the War, had said that German foreign relations fell under the responsibility of the Allies. Jean Monnet had simply replied "equality for Germany or we abandon everything". And this came to pass.
Emotion tinged with a smile. Jacques-René Rabier, who had worked with Jean Monnet before the Paris Treaty, added humour to the range of emotions when he described the first ECSC steps, the enthusiasm and extraordinary dynamism of the little team at the beginning and the flexible hierarchy (Max Kohnstamm was simply the Secretary (not the General Secretary) of the High Authority, eurocratic epaulettes came later). Jean Monnet came across as more of a man of influence and inspiration than a figure of power and everyone in his small staff was aware to some extent "of being involved in a great adventure on which the future of their countries and therefore of their children would depend" (see yesterday's Europe, p.14).
I will quickly summarise the two academic speeches - Marie-Thérèse Bitsch from Strasbourg University outlined the High Authority's history and initiatives (that young Europeans these days see as a kind of institutional dinosaur), and Wolfgang Wessels from Cologne University who outlined seven ideas about the ECSC as a manifestation of courage (few commentators expected it to survive at the time), the source of new form of governance, the first example of real transfer of national powers and proof of the validity of the "sectoral integration system" which still applies today for the currency, defence, the area of freedom and justice, etc.
Message of confidence. I will tarry on the speech by Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio who had been in Morocco that morning for obvious reasons but didn't want to miss the commemorations so as to bring a sign of confidence. She told people who detect the European project running out of steam and regret the passing of yesterday's drive she said that over time, more than more people share the spirit of the founding fathers and the circle is growing ever wider. Spaniards today know that Europe doesn't stop at the Pyrenees and it will soon be seen that it doesn't stop at the former Iron Curtain. The Convention has put an end to the "diplomatic rights" of centuries past and is preparing new ways of governing, Europe's new contribution to the organisation of the world. In the upcoming IGC where she'll be representing Spain, Ana Palacio pledged to participate in the same spirit in which she is participating in the Convention today.
"Stupid commentators". This brings us to Romano Prodi's speech (see page 11 of Europe of 24 July). The President of the European Commission didn't simply read out his speech but also reacted to two points in the brief debate before his speech: a) European democracy. Prodi is fed up with nonsense about a so-called bureaucratic European Commission designed by a small club of public figures. In reality the "club" is the heads of state elected by Europeans and Commissioners' nominations are approved by the European Parliament. However regrettable abstention is in the process (and this has to be fought), the President of the Commission is just as legitimate as the President of the United States (where abstention is also very high); and b) the euro. Prodi did not mince his words, describing people seeing the single currency as a further manifestation of Europe of the bankers and other financial powers as "stupid commentators", highlighting the significance of the euro for all citizens. Prodi stresses three points in terms of the future - keeping the Community Method, which needs updating but is the only way to make progress; the idea of "double majority" of states and citizens for EU decisions, the only system citizens can understand; and the EU's financial autonomy, needed to avoid endless bickering. He concluded by calling for enlargement to the east to go ahead, the first genuine unification of Europe in the history of the Old Continent.
Rediscovery in the 1980s. On top of its political significance, the ECSC is also hugely important as an example of difficult sectoral restructuring that succeeded because social aspects were taken into consideration alongside industrial aspects. Etienne Davignon, Vice-President of the European Commission from 1981 to 1985 explained how and why Europe in the 1980s rediscovered the ECSC Treaty to save the steel industry (see interview in Belgian newspaper "Le Soir" on 20 July 2002). There was huge surplus steel capacity and exporting steel was becoming more difficult because developing countries now had their own steel industries. Given the central role of steel in industry, Member States had started to subsidise their steel produces to an ever greater extent which was absurd from the economic viewpoint and a disaster for public finances so the European Commission used the powers it had inherited from the High Authority to introduce production quotas. Viscount Davignon said that the quotas had been designed at the beginning so that everyone could be served in a period of shortage but were used to cut production in a period of overcapacity. This was far from simple to implement, he said and it was in stages that they managed to make the Commission responsible for deciding how much steel could be produced based on historic capacities. It worked, he said
(F.R.)