18 April, 2011

Mr Barroso: Where is Europe's celebration for the first real peace and democracy in 2000 years? 18 April 2011 is the 60th Anniversary!

OPEN LETTER to President Barroso, Mr Herman van Rumpuy, Member State governments, Presidents of the European Parliament and the Consultative Committees: the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions.

From: David Price, Editor

Schuman Project

Dear President Barroso and Presidents of European institutions,
Today 18 April 2011 marks the sixtieth Anniversary of the foundation of European Democracy. It is also the Birthday of the Commission although the Commission together with the other institutions that were also created that day refuse to acknowledge it. Not even a press release was published.

It is the designated day to commemorate the birth of Europe. It is set by treaty and the by moral authority of all Europeans 60 years ago. That was agreed with huge majorities in all the eleven parliamentary debating chambers of the original Six founding Member States. The Founding Fathers also expressed themselves very clearly. They signed a document -- the Declaration of Inter-Dependence -- saying so.

Konrad Adenauer (West Germany),

Paul van Zeeland, Joseph Meurice (Belgium),

Robert Schuman (France),

Count Sforza (Italy)

Joseph Bech (Luxembourg),

Dirk Stikker and J. R. M. van den Brink (The Netherlands)

signed this document declaring the exact principles and the exact method which laid the TRUE FOUNDATION of a united democratic Europe.

After they had signed the Treaty of Paris creating Europe's first supranational Community, they reinforced it with this separate Declaration of Inter-Dependence.

It celebrates the way to create PEACE.

It celebrates the way to create EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY.

It says that 18 April should be regarded as the TRUE FOUNDATION of a democratic and political entity that had never existed as such before --- EUROPE.

The first European Community laid the foundation for
a peace system,
    the complete transformation of the Continent,
    breaking the powers of dictatorships,
    healing the division of Europe of the Cold War,
    in the creation of a new entity called EUROPE,
    living in peace and security
    with an unprecedented level of prosperity,
    unknown in all the separate national histories,
    with its own European foreign policy,
    a Single Market,
    a Single Currency,
    a Single, supranational European democracy and
    the European Reconciliation of ideas, governments, peoples and interests.

Today we are celebrating the LONGEST PERIOD OF PEACE in more than 2000 years of European history. At no time in the history of Europe was the territory of the original Six founder States of Europe free from war for more than about fifty years. Usually it was a great deal less.

Every generation in the past knew WAR. Now every generation since World War 2 knows only one thing inside the European Community -- PEACE.

That has NOT happened before.
  • Not in the time of the Romans,
  • not in the time after the removal of the Roman military dictatorship from Europe,
  • not during the time of Roman Emperor Constantine when the capital of the Empire moved to Constantinople, nor at any time till it fell in 1453,
  • not during the time of Justinian and his Code,
  • not during the time of Goths,
  • not during the time of Charlemagne,
  • not during the time of Otto,
  • not during the Normans,
  • not during the low Middle Ages, nor the middle Middle Ages nor the High Middle Ages,
  • not under the popes, nor under the emperors,
  • not under the Hohenstaufen, nor under Habsburgs,
  • not when Europeans where fighting Islamic invasions,
  • nor when the were conducting crusades abroad,
  • not when the population was diminished by plague,
  • nor when they grew in population,
  • not when the religion was that of the Roman pontiffs or that of Luther,
  • not under kings, nor emperors nor republics,
  • not under the 'enlightenment', nor 'humanism', or the age of 'reason',
  • not in the age of the French royal absolutism, the Republic or Napoleonism,
  • not in the time of industrialization, nor peasant agriculture,
  • not under the Congress of Europe,
  • not under the League of Nations,
  • not in the age of colonialism, nor when the Europeans lost the colonies,
  • nor has Europe ever created a United States of Europe based on the American model.
  • It has always been in a constant state of European civil war -- until 18 April 1951.
Today EUROPE has peace. Today, when the half-billion population of the European Union is probably twice that of the entire earth under the Romans, Europe has peace. And with what diversity of views! Today Europe is filled with more people with more diverse ideas on life, science, religion and politics. It has a couple of States with Atomic bombs able to kill hundreds of thousands in a single flash of light. It has tons of explosive bombs. European States have large armies, navies and airforces. They have never been used against fellow Member States. Never since 18 April 1951. States have great industry and fierce industrial competition. They have great centres of banking. But none of these have led to wars as in the past, not since 18 April 1951. Europe has not just a Single Market but now has the way to manage it without strife. It has more than a score of languages and much more in terms of cultures, all vying for survival in a modern world. No culture has gone to war to protect its existence, not since 18 April 1951. Everyone is free to pursue their own cultural activities. It has atheists living along side Jews and Christians, even though the principles of a supranational Europe derive from Biblical revelation. It has icy wastes in the Arctic and dry deserts in the south. All Europeans are fed. Europe has ideologies by the bucketful! And yet it has new means to come to agreement on the truth.

And yet in spite of all that diversity the New Europeans all have agreed on one thing. They want peace. And they agreed on the Method. That was the the SUPRANATIONAL method of the Community.

It has peace as a SUPRANATIONAL COMMUNITY. It works. Robert Schuman called it an innovation like a great 'scientific discovery'.

Why is the European Commission not explaining HOW it works? Why is it not explaining the difference between Supranational Democracy which works and internationalism or inter-governmentalism which will inevitably FAIL? History shows that to be the case.

That COMMUNITY was founded 60 years ago today. On that day the totally independent States of Europe agreed to a new institution, the European Commission, then called the High Authority. It would have supranational powers. That means it would exercise independent judgement, in the same way as a judge must in Court. It should NOT be in dialogue or tied to any enterprise, labour force, consumer group, nation, political party or other interest group or lobby. It should not take instructions from any government, and that includes resigning when they want a new minister. We would not expect that of a High Court judge. It would function according to universal values such as truth and justice. It would respect the framework agreement of all European States -- the Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

To work properly supranational democracy has a minimum of FIVE independent institutions. The Commission's members were to be selected by the governments to fulfill these criteria and also have sound judgement and the necessary experience. (That independence is a continuing struggle as politicians refuse to stop acting like prima donnas. They want to nominate their man or woman in the Commission, an act which is completely illegal in the Community system.)

The Commission's proposals, made as fair as they could judge, were then subject to Legal Opinions from three representative groups: governments, organized civil society (directly elected in their own parliament) and all individuals (represented by the European Parliament). Thus all sections of society should be consulted who were affected by the powers of the Commission. It would then enter into a full dialogue before the proposals became law by their publication by the Commission in the Official Journal. A court also of independent lawyers was given the task to act as a means of legal appeal, should any institution, or organization or individual feel that it was being discriminated. Any such person can ask the European Court a relevant question via a local, regional or national court or even a tribunal.

Because of that great innovation, Europe has had peace since 1945 -- 66 years of peace, totally unknown in the past. Instead of having another war the next generation after World War 2, Europe found a way to peace. That is a fact of history.

This political design was agreed by all governments and signed by their plenipotentiaries on 18 April 1951. It had as its prime goal and purpose:


It succeeded.

Peace can only come from TRUTH, Justice and Morality. That was also described in the DEMOCRATIC principles that the leaders defined on that great, historic day, sixty years ago. They said that the TRUE FOUNDATION for building Europe was SUPRANATIONAL DEMOCRACY.

Why, Mr President Barroso, are the European Institutions REFUSING to celebrate this event?
Why do all the histories you publish and all the discussions on Europe start with 1957 and the treaties of Rome?
Why are the politicians REFUSING to spend a Euro of taxpayers' money on commemorating this date?
WHY was there not even a simple Press Release today? Is the Commission not even free enough to commemorate this great day of PEACE -- perhaps the greatest event in some 2000 years of European history?

Is it because the politicians WANT to abandon SUPRANATIONAL DEMOCRACY? What other possible motive do you think they can have?

Is this the reason that the European institutions still refuse to publish the Declaration of Inter-Dependence that the European Founding Fathers signed on this day six decades ago?

I am enclosing a copy of that Declaration below.

Yours sincerely,

David Price

Schuman Project

Europe Declaration

18 April 1951

The following CHARTER OF THE COMMUNITY was made and signed on same day as europe's founding treaty of paris, creating the european coal and steel community. This DECLARATION of INTER-DEPENDENCE affirms that europe must be built on supranational democratic principles.

The President of the Federal Republic of Germany, His Royal Highness the Prince Royal of Belgium, the President of the French Republic, the President of the Italian Republic, Her Royal Highness the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Her Majesty, the Queen of The Netherlands,

Considering that world peace can only be safeguarded by creative efforts commensurate with the dangers threatening it;

Convinced that the contribution that an organized and invigorated Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations;

Conscious that Europe will not be constructed except by concrete achievements establishing first of all the reality of partnership, and by the establishment of common bases for economic development;

Anxious to cooperate through the expansion of their primary products in raising the standard of living and in progressing in works of peace;

Resolved to transform their age-long rivalry through the unification of their essential interests, and, by the inauguration of an economic Community, to assemble the initial basis for a broader and deeper Community of peoples who had for centuries been opposed in bloody conflicts, and to set the foundations of institutions capable of providing a direction to a destiny that is henceforward shared,

Have decided to create a European Coal and Steel.Community

This work, that has just been confirmed by our signature, we owe to the wisdom of our delegations and to the perseverance of our experts. We are deeply grateful to them.

Even before the work was set in motion, the virtues of the idea that inspired it had already aroused in our countries and beyond its borders an extraordinary surge of hope and confidence.

In signing the treaty founding the European Community for Coal and Steel Community, a community of 160 million Europeans, the contracting parties give proof of their determination to call into life the first supranational institution, and consequently create the true foundation for an organized Europe.

This Europe is open to all European countries that are able to choose freely for themselves. We sincerely hope that other countries will join us in our common endeavour.

In full awareness of the need to reveal the significance of this first step by sustained action in other sectors, we have the hope and the will in the same spirit that presided in the elaboration of this Treaty, to bring the current projects now in preparation to a successful conclusion. The work will be pursued in conjunction with the existing European bodies.

These initiatives, each with their particular objective, should rapidly take their place within the framework of a European Political Community, the concept of which is being elaborated in the Council of Europe. This should result in the coordination and simplification of the European institutions as a whole.

All these efforts will be guided by the growing conviction that the countries of free Europe are inter-dependent and that they share a common destiny. We will strengthen this sentiment by combining our energies and our determination, and bringing our work into harmony through frequent consultations and building ever-increasing trust through our contacts.

Herein lies the significance of this day. We have no doubt its importance will be understood by the public opinion of our countries and by our parliaments, who are called to decide on its ratification. The governments that together are represented here will act to all as interpreters of our common will to build a peaceful and prosperous Europe. And together we will serve Europe.

The declaration was signed by Konrad Adenauer (West Germany), Paul van Zeeland, Joseph Meurice (Belgium), Robert Schuman (France), Count Sforza (Italy) Joseph Bech (Luxembourg), Dirk Stikker and J. R. M. van den Brink (The Netherlands).

16 April, 2011

Monnet7: Can YOU discern if Jean Monnet was an egotistical mythmaker and a charlatan?

Why do people read blogs or history books, for that matter? Facts, you might say. A broader purpose is the search for truth. How do you examine history books? Do you always agree with them? Some blogs might seem to be convincing but are they really the truth or smooth public relations? To get at the truth, readers need discernment, logical analysis and background knowledge.

Are you up to the task?

If you doubt, what do you do? You check a reference book. But are they reliable? Take this comment which has found its way from the Memoirs of former Commission President Roy Jenkins into such reference books as the Penguin Companion to the European Union.
    `Schuman did not really understand the Treaty which bore his name.'
This is obviously balderdash but it would appear that both authors (the reference book and the Commission President Roy Jenkins) thought the comment of the original critic, X, was worth recording.

Or do you think it is possibly true? Can you be sure and defend your opinion?

Firstly, it seems rather extraordinary that anyone would make such a claim. The European Community is one of the most successful ventures in history. The author of the remark, X, quoted by Jenkins says the EU's originator, Schuman, did not understand what he was doing. Secondly, it is probably more astounding that someone somewhere believed this comment whoever made it. Did they have evidence? None is given. Does this mean that that Jenkins and the reference book's author were wise judges or parrots? All we can say is that they do not treat the reader as having any intelligence because they expect us to accept it purely on their own reputation. What is their reputation? Beyond that we have to suspend judgement on the facts for the moment.

The first rule is that we should have material evidence and logic for our opinions. We should not take any critic at face value. We should examine his credentials but more importantly we should examine the logic and facts first, without getting involved in personalities or opinions, whether a reference book, a Commission president or the original source of the quotation, X. Secondly we should then examine the motivation of the person, X, making the remarks.

The public accept a lot of advertising, propaganda and distortions without reflection. Many clever, well paid people fashioned them in a way to make people swallow them without thought. What a reader should ask is: What is the motivation of this critic and the purpose does he want to achieve? What critic would level such a obvious slander against someone who was considered one of the greatest experts on international treaties?

Let us assume that Roy Jenkins has reported the criticism correctly. This should be checked against other parts of his books. Let us get to the substance of the remark.

So what treaty is the critic is addressing? Schuman's name is associated with so many. The critic betrays his background and also lack of knowledge. No one treaty actually bears Schuman's name. So we must question whether the critic is a proven expert. Was he really familiar with diplomacy and treaty-making?

Schuman was involved in most of the key treaties that are still the democratic foundation of modern Germany, the foundation of modern Europe and trans-Atlantic relations. The understanding and wisdom of these agreements shows his expertise in the matter of treaty writing. Treaties were not only the exclusive prerogative of the Foreign Minister but Schuman as an international lawyer with three decades of experience, was a great specialist.

Does the statement agree with impartial judges? An American diplomatic historian of the US State Department wrote Schuman ‘derived great intellectual delight in the subtleties of international agreement’. Any such postwar treaty also entailed political risks. An effective treaty-writer had to be both an expert lawyer and expert politician. The international negotiations to create the Council of Europe had taken a great deal of energy and time. There is hardly a lawyer one could name in the postwar period that was more expert in treaties, so this criticism seems on any ground, bizarre.

Let us assume that the critic, X, refers to the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, not the Statutes of London, the European Convention of Human Rights or the Treaty of Washington that created NATO or the numerous others.

We come to specifics. Was it a matter about the technical industry, coking quality, iron ore trade and other details of processing of coal and steel? Did Schuman not understand new innovations and rolling mills? Was he ignorant about coal and steel cartels? That would require someone with enormous knowledge and experience to say that Schuman was inadequate in this department.

Schuman had been a member of the French Parliament for around four decades. He was elected without fail every election for his constituency of Thionville. This city of Lorraine is known as France's city of steel. The area was rich in iron ore but poor in the right sort of coal. It had to be imported mainly from the German Ruhr area. Schuman knew the ins and outs of the trade and also how the German iron, steel and coal barons had over the centuries manipulated and controlled the market against French interests.

Schuman was well aware that various wars with France were largely over asserting primacy for this main sector of the industrial revolution and the modern economy. In the postwar years Schuman had been continuously involved in Allied discussions about German steel production in all its ramifications. In his youth he had spent a great deal of time in Germany, received his education there, gained a Doctorate in Law with the highest honours, and had a large network of German friends. Monnet did not know the language, the commerce, politics or the people.

There was probably no politician in France who knew more about the technical processes of steel making than Schuman. His long speech in Brussels in 1949, well before Monnet had anything to do with the Schuman Declaration, shows his vast encyclopedic knowledge of both coal and steel techniques and hot political issues.

Was it, according to this critic, in the area of European Finance in the treaty that Schuman was so disastrously ignorant? Schuman had as Minister of Finance and Prime Minister achieved what many politicians considered impossible -- tackling simultaneously rampant inflation and balancing the books, both of government accounts and trade balance. In the interwar period he was considered one of Europe's great experts in international finance.

So who is this acerbic critic who says that Schuman did not understand the treaty that bore his name? So secondly, we should analyse the critic himself carefully.

Let's now start asking more personal questions. Who was this genius who far outclassed this intellectual, democratic and political accomplishments of Prime Minister Schuman? Was the critic more experienced in national finance? Did he have a greater political record? Schuman greatly desired that he would become a professor of the subject he had studied all his life -- the history of international and constitutional law.

He was well qualified for such a post, but he had devoted his life to practical work rather than ivory tower expositions. Schuman had been largely responsible both for the Lex Schuman, a consolidation of numerous laws and the civil, criminal and administrative codes that re-united Alsace and Lorraine after the First World War. This code, the Lex Schuman, could be described as the greatest act of legal unification in modern times till then. Did our critic mean this body of law that was named after Schuman? Or was he ignorant of it? Schuman had also been instrumental in the treaties of NATO, the Council of Europe, the Convention of Human Rights and of course the European Community.

The latter was based on a remarkable new innovation in the history of international law called supranational democracy. This was based on a deep analysis of political and moral philosophy as well as a life long study of how in history constitutions from the time of the Greek city states fail.

So if this critic was correct then to find the errors and mistakes of Schuman, he must have an intellect that far outclassed him and a critical sense. He must have political experience greater than a man who had twice been Prime Minister of France. One would have thought so.

Who was he? None other than Jean Monnet. What were his qualifications? He had never been elected to any democratic office. He knew very little about coal and steel. He inherited a brandy firm of Monnet and Co. His lacks when it came to understanding the coal and steel sector are clear from the time he was an administrator of the French economic plan. (This showed he had little grasp of the geopolitical position of the sectors and the key elements in it.)

Did Jean Monnet really understand the treaty of which he was supposed by de Gaulle to have been the inspirer? That epithet 'inspirer' started as a Gaullist slander and later found its way into sycophantic books and biographies.

What was Monnet's background and interest? One of the most in-depth studies of the period was accomplished by historian Georgette Elgey. What did she say about Monnet after interviewing him and his colleagues?

Monnet 'did not possess the faintest understanding of international law.'

Did he then learn on the job? Monnet's own career would indicate he knew little about the working of the treaty because he did not last long as a president of the first Commission, called the High Authority. That whole experience lasted two years nine month at the Commission. Is this period really long enough for Monnet to be able to make up his opinion? Schuman talked about long-term processes, such as that for Europe's national democracies that already took a thousand years.

For Monnet when he was responsible for aspects of the treaty from 10 Aug 1952 to 1 June 1955, he was obviously not concentrating on his job. His mind was elsewhere. During that time he resigned a couple of times but withdrew his first resignation so that his period there might have been rather shorter. He hardly had his mind on the treaty. And he died well before he could see the effects that Schuman predicted such as the re-unification of Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

A clear discrepancy is apparent with Monnet's story and the legend he and his friends constructed for him. For someone who claimed to be the inspirer too, it is obvious that this is false because if the first Community were his work he would have stayed longer. He stayed long enough with the high salary he set himself to clear his old debts. Then he left, presumably on a good pension. Monnet was known to make false claims over other aspects of the origin of the European Community.

Was he a great intellectual? Monnet never went to university so we have no way to make proper assessment. Was he a great learner? His biographer, Francois Duchene says he was 'little attracted to books, he left school at sixteen.' (Jean Monnet p30). His father told him not to read books. Was he an expert in coal and steel? Hardly. His family business was cognac and he was a cognac salesman. Was he an expert in finance? At one stage he was a banker but he lost his fortune in a crash.

What then were his talents? Paul Reuter, an international lawyer who worked for Schuman at the Foreign Ministry as deputy jurisconsult, had this to say: 'he was small and stocky ... and sometimes had a sly smile. I have seen him wrapping people round his little finger, seducing them. He could do that.' (Jean Monnet, p24). He was therefore a great manipulator, keen to persuade. As Monnet might or might not know -- he gives little clue in his Memoirs, since he calls Reuter a university professor -- a jurisconsult is a top lawyer at the Foreign Ministry and as a lawyer can plead the case of France before international courts dealing with treaties. He is paid to have discernment.

On 20 February 1978 the then Commission President Roy Jenkins went to meet with Jean Monnet, who was then 89. Jenkins describes Monnet as 'remarkably sharp' in his published diaries. Jenkins gives every indication that he also was seduced by Monnet. It would seem that many people including successive Commission have been seduced and waylaid by him too. They devoted all the Community's propaganda power to shoring up the Monnet myth.

So what great illumination did Monnet have about the treaty that Schuman lacked? Schuman spoke at length in many speeches in French, German and English about the great innovation of the Treaty of Paris, Europe's first Community. He described the democratic bases of the Community. He signed with the other Founding Fathers the Great Charter of the Community, that redefined Europe's history from war to peace, from nationalism to international cooperation, from dictatorship to democracy.

During the whole period of Monnet's presidency of the High Authority there is no evidence that he published this great document. It said that the supranational principle was the foundation stone of the new Europe.

Nor did he publish the correct version of the Schuman Declaration. He published his own version cutting out all Schuman's introduction that put it in a historic and geopolitical context.

Schuman said a great new innovation, 'a scientific discovery' lay behind all of this new opportunity for peace and prosperity. It was the supranational principle. What did Monnet think of this, how did he analyse it and what did he say about it? Simply this. 'I did not fancy the word (supranational) then and I have never liked it.' That seems the height of incompetence and willful ignorance.

It might be a smart or glib remark for someone to make in a bistro with a glass of brandy in his hand. It is hardly fitting coming from someone who was employed by the public tax-payer to defend the principle of supranational democracy.

The public should begin to analyse whether this part of the work of Monnet is the work of a charlatan or a con artist. It is much like someone who is secretary general of NATO saying I do not really believe in defence or the military. It is rather like a supreme court judge saying I do not believe in the rule of law, do not know what the term means and never liked the idea as far as I grasp it.

What did Monnet think of his fellow Commissioners? There were two Germans, a Luxembourger, a Belgian, two Italians, and another Frenchman with a lifetime in the steel industry management. They included very experienced people, lawyers, diplomats, trade unionists, and other experts in the coal and steel industries. Indeed they covered all the experience and expertise that Monnet lacked.

Were they any better than Schuman? This is what Jenkins records. 'The German members of the Commission -- and indeed those of the other nations -- were pretty useless.'

I am afraid that this would probably be the opinion of M. Monnet of the present and past Commissioners -- in fact it could well be his opinion on everyone else -- except of course M. Monnet.