The Monnet Plan in the 1950s - Essay Example

The Monnet plan in the 1950s Extent of Monnet method in providing an accurate explanation of the process of European integration during the 1950s By: Course: Name of the tutor: Date: This essay will look at the plans of Monnet and how they influenced various decisions in the making of the EU. The treaties involved during the negotiations as well as such bodies like the EDC, ECC, the High Authority and ECSC and there role in the formation of united Europe. The impact in this process and in this I will examine the Korean War and the strategies of USA and USSR and the fight for Britain to preserve her status. In this essay I will examine the place of France as well as Germany. It is important to note that the ideas were the causes. They led to the formation of an EU, in the 1950s. French especially, took the matter concerning coal and steel as major plan for reconstruction and defense method during the Korean War. Coal and steel during early reconstruction defense led to the outbreak of Korean War. There were other countries like USA and USSR which came in the process of founding of EU. The French chose the ECSC and EEC projects because there were leaders with other interests who wanted to push for their own agendas not necessary because majority wanted it this way. The institution of the European Union did not limit the making of the policies in the 1958, even during the differences of the ECC and ECSC. The structures set a clear view of European institution building. Jean Monnet is considered the founding father of European integration. There are however, Bitter battles between Europhiles and Euroskeptics. Jean developed the Schuman plan together with a small team of collaborators. Monnet used the services of Robert Bowie who was an American and had written the first two competitive law articles of the Paris treaty. Monnet later wrote of ECSC articles of competition which were the fundamental innovation for Europe. France at the time was the world’s largest importer of coal and coke. There was therefore a need for a common market for coal and steel to ensure a sufficient and cheap supply of German machines for the French industry and the realization of the French industry modernization plan. Thus with the creation of the ECSC, the issues of control would cease since war between German and France would be ruled out because neither would fight without an independent coal and steel industry. Jean at one time felt that the resolutions of the council of Europe would not lead anywhere since it was the opposite of the community spirit, “I realized that neither this organization . . . nor the parliamentary meetings in Strasbourg . . . would ever give concrete expression to European unity” (Monnet 1978: 273). Europe was not in unity in terms of trade. Coal and steel was one of the great factor that lead to the coming together of the Europe governments. After the plan was started, steel industry started a major campaign against the way the negotiations were conducted. The hostility of the French steel industry was furthermore fuelled by the French investigations which showed that she was able to compete than admit. By the end of the year, protests of Monnet conduct of negotiations were registered by nearly every chamber of commerce in France. The goal of both socio-economic and security objectives was to bind Germany to a supranational organization with better co-operative agreements. To achieve co-operation, France and Germany had to commit themselves institutionally in the High Authority to create a level playing ground. According to Urwin, Germany was ready to participate in the Schuman’s plan. According to Kusters prospective Coal and Steel Community brought about a path that led to more international influence and the recapture of national policy-making rights in other fields through the lifting of the occupation status as well as a guarantee of peace between France and Germany (Kusters 1988: 78). There were the technical issues which proved to be of great concern for Germany. However, it was these technical issues which became highly political in the course of the negotiation especially with regard for competencies of the High Authority. There was the dominance of security related concerns in informing the German place in the co-operation and the first stages of acceptance of the principle of supranationality. There was found weakness during the course of negotiations and economic considerations found their way into the German negotiating position which was a result of the Korean War. Later were the Benelux countries who based their agreement to join the coal and steel pool expecting benefits from such an agreement, wanting co-operation in areas where they expected joint gains would be highest (Laffan, pg 34). The coal and steel pool under the French terms did not attract much support. The Dutch government wanted the abolition of the so called quantitative restrictions on trade. All means falling, the Schuman plan was all that was left. Countries like Dutch, Belgium and Luxembourg which dependence on coal and steel was very high considered low common tariffs. They advocated that High Authority should not be allowed to set tariffs level. Other issue that set differences was wage policy which loomed large in the context of coal prices. History offered no precedent’ (Monnet 1978: 294). It is important to note that the Dutch was very much involved in the movement of High Authority through sending a delegation requesting for more accountability in this organ. In the late 1950 intensive discussions among the French negotiators took place on the questions of democratic control and accountability of the High Authority. The assembly overseen by the High Authority was to debate the Authority’s annual report. The parliamentary assembly was also supposed to possess the right to censure the High Authority. There were problems like the France recovery being halted by the German industrial production and its competitive capacity. Jean was worried about the cold war and the USA which did not want to take the course that they had suggested. Jean believed that France only could bring about the change especially because they could protest and act against the Germans. Jean was starting to believe that if this does not happen, Europe would die. Jean’s memo was addressed to Robert Schuman who on his side believed that, “World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.” He suggested that since Europe cannot be made by a single plan, there was a need to unite together all the nations of Europe by first eliminating the old age opposition of France and Germany. These two countries he believed were the reason for change. But since France was opposed to the action it proposed that the Franco-German coal production be placed under a higher Authority and within the frame works of an organization but open to the participation of the other countries of Europe (Cini, pg 78). The pooling together of the coal and steel production was to provide a unifying ground and create the first step to the Federation of Europe. The call for unity continued further with Konrad suggesting that the union were already coming up in Benelux countries. He said that the Scandinavian countries, as well as France and Italy, were contemplating similar measures. He said that the Great Britain which sees herself as the European power would occupy her place inside the frameworks of the United Nations of Europe in her position and power. This way, American people would get the returns for the billions of dollars they had given to Europe, since there was to be a genuine and major contribution from within to the rebuilding and merger of Europe. The Western Europe developed a very strong international institution in the 1950s. In the end, six governments committed to deep and broad cooperation in the EEC which included the EEC’s executive commission and court. There was a unanimous believe that the French choices were particularly important to the EEC’s birth. By this time the EDC had failed due to very many factors. It was therefore important to come up with a union better governing the EU community. With the development this plan the EEC would lead the European Community to a better place in the matters of trade and bilateral agreements. The long such for a unifying factor between France and Germany was proving to be a tough rock to crack. However, this new development was to bring a better understanding of peace in the two governments. Such issues as were raised through the ECSC were being solved one after the other. There was the case of the EDC similar plan which was proposed by France and which was lying within NATO. France’s ECSC partners (Germany, Benelux, Italy) agreed at last to negotiate EDC but this was not to happen as the French proposed a new plan which partly was favouring France. Other governments seeking new partnership came up with their own proposals which were mostly in favour of Germany. French wanted new basis so that they could cooperate with West Germany in 1950s. The EDC died later. Soon enough, economic interests went through interest groups refocusing the French on its trade. It should be noted that the British had such a great plan for business and bearing in mind that she was the super power in the European community, she had a great role to play in the trade business. Haas who was the pioneer of institutionalism led French to the ECSC but these institutions led to EEC. It is important to note that the EEC was very strong compared to the ECSC. There were a lot of factor that made France more concerned with the movement of the ECSC, like the ideas mattered more than the causes. Coal and steel during early reconstruction defense led to the outbreak of Korean War. France leader a voided the parliamentary votes that contrasted European alternatives. Many of the voters liked Europe but knew very little about the European alternative. French elites largely agreed on their basic European strategy. Their main goal was to keep Germany weak but also rebuilding French strategy. It is important to note that some of the French elites held to their traditional strategies. French had such friends as USSR and United Kingdom but not the other Europeans. These issues by the French brought about many problems in Germany, with some elites in favor of community projects. The community model first entered French debates seriously with Foreign Minister Robert Schuman's proposal for a "European Coal and Steel Community" in May, 59 1950. France, West Germany, and other countries would pool their coal and steel industries under independent "supranational" institutions. Konrad believed further that the parliaments of the six European communities will have to deal with the European Coal and Steel Community by believing that the political goal was greater than the economic purpose (Burgess, pg 64). Then there was the treaty of Paris which dealt with issues of trade as well as leading to the formation of ECSC which was a plan of France. Following this treaty was the Resolution adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the Member States of the European Coal and Steel Community at the Messina Conference. But the governments of Federal German Republic, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands now had idea that it was time for Europe to make a new plan. And they suggested that this was first to start in the economic field. Konrad believed that European nations had a past but no future both in the political as well as the economic social sphere. Monnet suggested the Schuman Plan and the European Defence Community as initial steps to a political alliance of Europe. This EDC had specific provisions for a controlling body that is the Parliamentary Assembly which had exercised the parliamentary controlling of the Coal and Steel Community. The military part was one of the elements of the emerging Europe. The ECSC debates were on several issue-areas but the Community champions tried to copy the ECSC in their proposals for a European Defence Community (EDC). In 1954 ending the ECSC had debates which widened the issue areas. There were those who tried the make themselves in terms with French policies as part of their new strategies. The community leaders wanted to know more about the ECSC and therefore proposed a European Agricultural Community, a European Health Community, a European Transports Community, and most important by far a European Defense Community. France had the idea of an EDC and all over sudden was not in favour of it any more. This brought about one of the very greatest debates in France. This was accounts which lead to the outbreak of the Korean War around 1950 which then brought about intense US pressure to re arm West Germany. It was this pressure that led the French to EDC. There was then the signing of the treaty in 1952 and afterwards there was a shift that undermined the French support. There were fears of Germany dominating the EDC especially when the British refused to join and on the other hand the French forces were called inside Indochina. The death of Stalin in 1953 lessened the cold war pressures. By 1954, the French had a change of mind and the whole assembly then rejected the treaty. There was US pressure due to the rise of defence outlays by sharing the information among the other European countries. The French and there support for the EDC declined just after 1952 when a Third Force was taken over by a conservative group of coalition with no social agenda. It is said that neither the French elites nor the Third Force leaders ever came to an agreement on the EDC. There were no changes that lead the individuals to change their views of the French interests in 1951 to 1954. There were calls for the integration of German units into a supranational European Army. There was the community option which led to the EDC treaty in 1952. There was the influence of US in ECSC. The French went for the EDC through the year 1952 not because Third Force supported it but because the leaders controlled the foreign policy agenda. Schuman was the one who was pushing for the ECSC style of frame work in summer 1951, although no one was consulted in this matter. Monnet was very much involved in convincing the US leaders to focus on the EDC rather than the NATO track. As a result, the Third Forces abandoned the Schuman plan. As things continued in the late 1951, the British ruled out joining any supranational solution. Schuman gave in to the generous terms of Germany within the EDC. The following year the traditionalist was abandoning the EDC. This same year Schuman was removed from his office. Third Forces lost their track eventually giving up all together due to the religious schools and the socialist opinions. The EDC died later due to policymakers’ stand which was very much without any change. There was simply no perfect solution for Germany which was very much divided. There was no one who could have made it clear how German unity in freedom was to be attained without a strong and united Europe. At the victory of ECSC’s victory, sparked several community projects; there was the Franco-British intergovernmental organization. There were those who rejected the Western European Union (WEU) deal seeing this as the Anglo-Saxon plot relegating France to a non global role in minor EU. France wanted to show her global power through the bilateral deals, which pushed for new bilateral accords in trade, atomic energy, armaments production, and transports in 1954-55, focusing on new ties with the rising German economy showing that traditionalists were not keen to change. These lead Monnet to initiate a plan for European Economic Community (EEC). This EEC had mandate for change in the common market as it was referred. But the French bureaucrats argued that "economic and social disruption which cannot be underestimated. France government was very much opposed to the Spaak Committee. Politics in France was beginning to change. A group called the Mollet team began lobbying for support by first using the farmers. There was a lot of hostility from the various divides all across Europe. Negotiations for the support of Mollet’s plan went on and on as France became more relaxed after a while with France only concerned with her oversea territories. Mollet pushed for German side of agreement in the investments and aid for the French Union. It can be said that the origin of the EU started in the 1950’s. Such required lots of co-operation from the concerned governments (Haas, pg 15). Then there was the Treaty of Rome which established the EEC and Euratom, (25th March 1957) which had many provisions among many the following: Article 1: By the existing agreement, the High constricting Parties (Belgium, West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands) put up among themselves a European Economic Community. Article 2 provided for balanced growth, an improved stability, an speeded up raising of the standard of living and closer relations between its Member States. Article 3: For the reason set out in the preceding Article, the deeds of the Community shall include, under the setting and with the timing provided for in this Treaty: This treaty of Rome marked the birth of the EU. But there were other institutions already in place like the ECSC which had enabled the creation of the court, the Assembly and the council. Jean Monnet in his vision proposed for a new Europe a council of ministers, a European Economic Commission, an Assembly, which is a sort of a Parliament, and a Court of Justice, which is a seed of the Supreme Court. The council of ministers was to bring together the national views of the six governments by meeting at intervals. Every government was to be represented in the council by its foreign minister or by one or more other ministers such as the Finance minister. The continuing, day-to-day executive work of the Community was to be handled by the nine-member European Economic commission, which on the other hand was to defend the common interest of the community and represent the community viewpoint and was to act by the majority vote in all things. The community had very many powers as specified in the treaty. It is important to note that there were battles because of the EDC with ECSC debates all over across several issues. There was a problem of the third Force leaders which was replaced by a conservative coalition with no such social agenda. The ECSC went off the track with the rejection of 1954 EDC and the failure of the European Political Community. What brought it back was the 1956 Spaak report. Which prepared the way for the Treaties of Rome; The Spaak recommendations lead to the formation of the EC treaty. This prohibited agreements between member state effect of preventing, restricting, or distorting competition on the ground that they are incompatible with the common market. The European Union structure was a process that involved agreement, disagreements, fights between Germany and France as well as structure of the six other governments. to prevent firms or member states from erecting barriers to trade to replace those dismantled by the EC, to promote integration, and “to safeguard an economic and social order based on freedom” for businessmen, consumers, and workers. He saw these three goals competition, integration, and freedom as mutually consistent. The Commission has similarly emphasized the efficiency aspects of free competition. In the end of the day Monnet plan brought about change and in the end resulting to the European Union. Such issues as bilateral trade and the need or push for coal and steel, resulted to the governments in their greed and quest for these two coal products to come up and enter as a debate in he EU. In the end we can conclude that Monnet was very much involved in the making of the EU. There were battles because of the EDC with ECSC debates all over across several issues. There was a problem of the third Force leaders which was replaced by a conservative coalition with no such social agenda. On the other hand, ECSC went off the track with the rejection of 1954 EDC and the failure of the European Political Community. What brought it back was the 1956 Spaak report which prepared the way for the Treaties of Rome. Also the Spaak recommendations lead to the formation of the EC treaty. This prohibited agreements between member state effect of preventing, restricting, or distorting competition on the ground that they are incompatible with the common market. Some of his plans were adapted and re organized by such people as Schuman who later was to leave his office for failing to secure some of the plans to the governments by adapting changes which were not acceptable. Later, the government of US was to be very close to this political change that was happening in Europe. Britain was one of the main in government involved in this process remembering that it was a very powerful country. Today, we have an EU as a result of these many changes that have happened. It is important to note that the ideas were the causes. They led to the formation of an EU, in the 1950s. French especially, took the matter concerning coal and steel as major plan for reconstruction and defense method during the Korean War. The French chose the ECSC and EEC projects because there were leaders with other interests who wanted to push for their own agendas not necessary because majority wanted it this way. The institution of the European Union did not limit the making of the policies in the 1958, even during the differences of the ECC and ECSC. The structures set a clear view of European institution building. The leaders of these countries determined the way the process of togetherness will be led. On the influence of Third Forces, which made it clear their participation role, could not get the full attention of this European community. The centrist majority in the end of their push allowed for community choices, a place which created room for the community policies though this idea was not put into practice. It is also important to note that the community policies led to the CAP, which was very wide multi lateral policy integration in history. Leaders were pushing for their agendas but in the end of this flights and fights, there was the formation of an EU. Works cited Bomberg, E, Peterson, J. and Stubb, A. (2008) The European Union: How Does it Work? (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2nd Edition, Ch. 2 on history. Burgess, M. (2000) Federalism and European Union: the building of Europe, 1950-2000 (London: Routledge). Cini, M. (ed.) (2006) European Union Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2nd Edition, Ch. 2. Dedman, M. (1996) The origins and development of the European Union, 1945-95: a history of European integration (London: Routledge). Nice and easy reading. Dedman, M. (2009) Origins and Development of the European Union 1945-2008 (London: Routledge), 2nd Edition. Book on order Dell, E. (1995) The Schuman Plan and the British Abdication of Leadership in Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press) Diebold, W. (1959) The Schuman Plan: a Study in Economic Co-operation, 1950-59 (New York: Praeger) Dinan, D. (1999) Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration (Basingstoke: Macmillan), 2nd Edition. Ch. 1 on ECSC/EEC Dinan, D. (2004) Europe Recast: a history of European Union (Basingstoke: Palgrave), Ch.1-3. Duchêne, C. (1994) Jean Monnet: the First Statesman of Interdependence (London: W.W. Norton), pp. 181-309. George, S. and Bache, I. (2006) Politics in the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 2nd edition, Ch. 6-9. Ginsberg, R. (2007) Demystifying the European Union: The Enduring Logic of Regional Integration (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers). *Haas, E. (1968), The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces (Stanford: Stanford University Press) Kaiser, W. (2007) Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union (Cambridge University) Kaiser, W., Leucht, B. and Rasmussen, M. (eds.) (2008) The History of the European Union: Origins of a Trans - and Supranational Polity 1950-72 (London: Routledge/UACES Contemporary European Studies) (Hardcover). Laffan, B. (1992) Integration and Co-operation in Europe (London: Routledge) pp. 22-44. Milward, A. (1984) The Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1945-51 (London: Methuen) *Milward, A. (1992) The European rescue of the nation state (London: Routledge), pp. 1-46 and p. 196-224. Nugent, N. (ed.) (2004) European Union Enlargement (Basingstoke: Palgrave). Covers the history of enlargement Salmon, T. and Nicoll, W. (eds.) (1997) Building European Union: a documentary history and analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press) Urwin, D. (1991) The Community of Europe: A History of European Integration since 1945 (London: Longman), pp. 1-7 and 43-88. Weigall, D. and Stirk, M. (eds.) (1999) The Origins and Development of European Integration: a reader and commentary (London: Pinter). Read More