The solemn “Declaration”

“World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it”. These are the opening words of the solemn “Declaration” of May 9 1950 by Robert Schuman, which proposed to place European carbon and steel communities under a new common authority. According to the then French-Foreign minister this would have ensured “common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe”, and would therefore “change the destinies of those regions”, notably France and Germany, “which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims”. May 9 has become “Europe-Day”, symbolizing the relevance of the Declaration that led to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, the first supranational organization in the Old Continent. Several initiatives are being planned across Europe to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the initiative that triggered the integration process. SIR Europe interviewed Alfredo Canavero, professor of Modern History at the University of Milan and author of numerous publications on community integration and on the figure of Alcide De Gasperi, to delve into the significance of this event. Professor Canavero’s most renowned works focus on the history of the Catholic movement and of Italian foreign policies. He co-chairs, with Jean-Dominique Durand (Lyon III University), a research program on the role of the Churches in European identity building, in the framework of a large research program coordinated by the Sorbonne University in Paris. Dr. Canavero chairs the Foreign Affairs and Public Opinion centre at the University of Milan and serves as Secretary at the History of International Relations Committee, which is affiliated to the World Congress of Historical Sciences. Gianni Borsa, SIR Europe correspondent from Brussels and Strasbourg, interviewed him. The Schuman Declaration placed the foundations of the Community integration process. Which historical framework triggered the initiative of the French Minister? “It was the aftermath of one of the most horrific wars in the history of mankind. The world was divided into two opposing blocs and the Cold War was at the crudest phase. Sentient Europeans started to reflect upon the gloomy consequences of nationalistic oppositions that caused wars, death and destruction. The long-dated French-German rivalry highlighted the problem of the control of energy sources (coal deposits on the borders between the two countries) and of steel and iron production. It was believed that the sharing of these resources, with the involvement of an increasing number of countries, could lead to different – namely, non-conflicting – relations, based on mutual cooperation. Moreover, stepping up West-European cohesion would have helped resist long-feared Soviet expansion. And the United States was expected to welcome this first thrust towards cohesion”.Long before bringing political cooperation, common coal and steel resources led to economic exchange. Had it been envisaged? “Actually, this choice was determined by circumstances. Nationalistic oppositions were still strong, and placing the foundations of an economic community was believed to be the best way to face this question without shocks. The federalist proposal turned out to be unfeasible, and also the hopes reposed in the Council of Europe had not been followed through. Starting from the economy and adopting a so-called ‘functionalist’ choice, at the time seemed the only option”.At the time, who supported integration and who opposed it, inside and outside Europe? “Among the supporters of Europe figure a large part of the establishment of those Countries that were to become ECSC members, namely France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Fortunately they also had decision-making powers. In Italy, for example it was supported by Prime Minister De Gasperi, and Foreign Minister Sforza, along with the President of the Republic Einaudi. The ‘Six-Party’ government was untainted by strong anti-Europeanist feelings, although in some cases it was marked by scepticism and lack of interest. Other questions were considered of paramount importance – namely European reconstruction, economic recovery and the fear of Communism – and not everyone understood that a resolution would be best achieved by means of European cooperation. At international level the United States greatly welcomed Europe’s integration process in the just belief that a strong Europe would foster resistance to Soviet Union expansionistic drives. This proved true upon the aftermath of the Korea war, which many considered the testing grounds for a similar attack to the heart of Europe”. Who was hostile to it? “Right-winged parties opposed integration, as they were bound to nationalistic views whereby state sovereignty had to be preserved fully. Communist parties and their allies held the same stance, and naturally the Soviet Union and its satellite states, concerned about the strengthening of the Western bloc, which they perceived as being potentially aggressive. Great Britain rejected adhesion, claiming a different role for herself, especially before the United States. But in this phase at least it wasn’t against it. We also must consider the perplexities of economic environments that feared losing their dominating positions”.Schuman, with the other “founding fathers”, was a Christian-Democrat who had personally experienced twentieth century divisions and conflicts. To what extent did his personal experience and his cultural and religious identity influence this “idea of Europe”? “The fact that Schuman, along with De Gasperi and Adenauer, were ‘borderland citizens’ (the former two were citizens a different country from the one they had been representing for almost forty years) and that they were Catholics (not only nominally, they were Catholics marked by profound and authentic spirituality) certainly played an important role. These shared features, which brought to a fruitful cooperation, being also based on true friendship, led detractors to speak of a ‘Clerical Europe’, subservient to the Vatican, and even to the revival of the Holy Roman Empire. In reality all three had a deep faith in democracy, they believed in dialogue with their opponents and put it into practice, as much as possible in the Cold War period. Thanks to their ‘borderland’ experience, they perfectly understood minority groups’ problems, and acknowledged the need to build bridges and open new doors between the various European countries. This was certainly a result of their religious faith. But while their shared religious faith and Christian-democrat views played a major role for Europe’s advancement, we mustn’t forget the contribution of personalities with different ideological backgrounds such as Jean Monnet or Paul-Henri Spaak, or from different faiths such as Mario Alberto Rollier, André Philip and René Courten”.The ECSC, the EEC and finally the EU can be viewed as the product of the May 9 Declaration. After 60 years, what balance can be drawn from this economic and institutional process? “Like all balances, there are both pros and cons. Europe experienced the longest period of peace in history, conflicts between Old Continent countries have ended (except for ethnic and religious conflicts in ex-Yugoslavia unfortunately) and prosperity has spread. Many European countries have a common currency, which promotes trade. European citizens circulate freely across states and the youth, albeit unknowingly, identify themselves as European citizens. The cons include the recent resumption of nationalisms and localisms, and the tendency to give priority to national policies over European ones (the permanent UN seat is but an example). EU-27 enlargement certainly did not promote cohesion, also because recent members include countries that oppose strengthening political integration, being primarily concerned with national economic gains. As De Gasperi said, united Europe must become an objective that warms our hearts, which is not being pursued for mere economic interests. I do believe that if Europe still wishes to play a role in the relations with current or future powers (US, China, Russia, Japan, Brazil) it will have to consider becoming a true Federal State, whose community institutions – Commission, European Parliament, Court of Justice – will be granted increasing powers, while institutions representing national interests – the European Council – will become less relevant. But I’m afraid that this road is thwarted by difficulties. The choice of appointing as EU Foreign Affairs Minister a representative of Great Britain, one of the Countries which least favours the Federal integration of Europe, doesn’t open our hearts to hope”.