[C]ONSIDERING that world peace can only be protected by creative efforts commensurate with the dangers which threaten it;
CONVINCED that the contribution which an organized and vital Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations;
AWARE that united Europe can only be achieved by concrete measures creating at the outset a de facto solidarity and by the construction of common foundations for its economic development;
DESIROUS, by means of the expansion of their basic production, of contributing to a higher standard of living and the progress of the work for peace,
DETERMINED to replace age-old rivalries by a merging of their fundamental interests, to lay the first foundations, through the establishment of an economic pool, of a broader and deeper community between peoples long divided by cruel strife and to prepare the ground for institutions capable of guiding a destiny henceforth to be shared in common;
HAVE RESOLVED on the establishment of a European Coal and Steel Pool. The work to which our signatures have just set the seal is due to the intelligence and the tenacity of our delegations and our Experts. We are deeply grateful to them. Even before this work was begun the very idea which was its inspiration had already aroused, in our countries and beyond, outstanding hope and confidence. In signing the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Pool, an organization, involving a hundred and sixty million Europeans, the Contracting Parties have given proof of their determination to set up the first supra-national institution and thus to lay the real foundations of an organized Europe. All European countries are free to participate in such an organized Europe. We sincerely hope that other nations will associate themselves with our efforts. Fully aware of the need to give full validity to this first step by continuous action of the same nature in other fields, we hope and resolve, in the very spirit that has inspired the establishment of this Treaty, to bring plans now in preparation to a successful conclusion...The result should be a co-ordination and simplification of European institutions as a whole. All these efforts are inspired by the growing conviction that the countries of free Europe are inter-dependent and share a common destiny. We shall consolidate this sentiment by pooling our energy and our determination and by bringing our work into harmony by means of frequent consultations and the establishment of ever more trustful contacts. Such is the significance of this day's work. We do not doubt that this will be apprehended by public opinion in our countries and by the Parliaments who will be required to reach a decision on the Treaty. The Governments here represented will convey to them the determination which we all share, in common, to construct and to serve a peaceful and prosperous Europe.--Joint Declaration, establishing the European Coal and Steel Pool (ECSP; 18 April 1951)
The Joint Declaration was issued at the signing of the Treaty of Paris. In addition to establishing a concrete example of supra-national cooperation, it offers an enduring regulative ideal for the European Union; it is to be a forward-looking political project ("common destiny") that is intended to secure an enduring peace (between Germany and France), "higher standard of living," and even an "enduring community" by means of the pooling economic sovereignty and through repeat interaction ("frequent consultations and the establishment of ever more trustful contacts") governed as much by self-interest as it is by "de facto solidarity." It presents the Treaty as a first step to be repeated by "continuous action of the same nature in other fields" through the work of "experts" and government & industry "delegations," who, thereby, shape "public opinion" and "parliaments." This elite-guided, top-down structure is what one might call the blue-print for the modus operandi of the European Union.*
As I said before, from the vantage point of the last few centuries (and possibly stretching back to time immemorial), the ever closer union of the EU has been an astounding success: Germany and France are at peace. The question is if this success is due to this modus operandi or, as now seems more likely, due to the existence of (a) fresh memories of several highly destructive wars and (b) a scary common enemy (USSR), (c) a common, more powerful ally focused on providing a Pax Americana, (d) [the promise] of solid economic growth. For absent (b-d), the strains on the blue-print are starting to become very vivid. The EU is limping from crisis to crisis in the context of a badly functioning monetary union; several member countries (e.g. Hungary) pursue policies deeply at odds with liberty; too many young Muslim citizens are not buying into European ideals and leave to fight in foreign wars or become local threats; we face an ever growing refugee crisis; at Europe's borders the governments of Russia and Turkey are openly and dangerously showing contempt for the political-legal framework that has governed European affairs during the last few generations. Worst of all, we have even failed to undo the division of Cyprus in a fair and enduring matter.
Judging by the top-down modus operandi (with key roles for experts, well-organized lobbyists, and government diplomats) adopted, the founding generations of the European Union were mistrustful of parliamentary democracy. After all, they experienced the rise of illiberal regimes from within parliamentary democracies (Germany, Italy) and they also experienced how parliamentary democracies were unable to provide the kind of union necessary to prevent neither civil war (Spain) nor fatal internal disunity (France). These weaknesses of parliamentary democracies were exposed by severe economic conditions (depression, hyper-inflation, high unemployment), in turn the consequence of the badly designed Treaty of Versailles (that ended World War 1) and mishandling of financial crises. It is now entirely foreseeable that the Greeks -- at least the ones that don't have their savings parked in London banks -- will turn to more illiberal politicians after the new round of austerity imposed on them.++
Be that as it, by inclination and from the reading of history, I am no enemy of merely muddling through. But it is apparent that once the EU has turned into a forum for zero-sum bargaining among national politicians, as it seems we have now become, there is very little that can prevent the determinedly strong from exhibiting a shocking lack of solidarity with other, systematically weaker Europeans. (It's not the lack of solidarity as such that is shocking -- as anybody who reflects on the present treatment of refugees recognizes.) To continue down this road is to guarantee more political crises that will sap whatever vitality is remaining in the EU (and worse). One route forward is to change the monetary union by either confining it to fewer countries or by introducing fiscal transfers to accompany it; the other route is to create political institutions in which European citizens elect European-wide politicians who have incentives to chase votes everywhere and, thereby, facilitate, however imperfectly, more equal bargaining.
*Unlike the slightly later Preamble to Treaty of Rome, which focuses on "peoples" and "regions" (recall), the foundational Declaration conceives of union of countries and nations.
++I have pointed out that the Greek electorate has not rewarded truthful politicians.
Comments