Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, Europe: Political and Economic Developments, Volume IV, Part 1

No. 4

740.00/2–2851: Despatch

The Consul at Strasbourg ( Andrews) to the Department of State ¹

confidential
No. 294

Strasbourg, February 28, 1951.

Subject: Meeting at Strasbourg on February 26 and 27 of the Special Committee on Agriculture of the Consultative Assembly, Council of Europe.

The following members of the 7-man Special Committee on Agriculture of the Consultative Assembly, Council of Europe, met at Strasbourg on February 26 and 27 to prepare a report on a European Authority for Agriculture: Signor Ludovico Benvenuti (Italian), Chairman; Mr. David Eccles (British), Vice-Chairman; Monsieur René Charpentier (French), rapporteur of the Committee; Mr. W. Rip (Netherlands); and Herr Heinrich Gerns (German). The two other members of the Committee were not present, namely, Mr. Suad Hayri Ürgüplü (Turkish) and Mr. Per Federspiel (Danish).

Reference is made to Documents No. AS(2)54² and No. AS(2)154,² concerning the establishment of specialized authorities. I am told that Mr. Eccles interpreted “texts” in paragraph (iv) of the latter document to mean texts in each case for a European Authority for Agriculture and a European Authority for transport, whereas it was interpreted by the other members of the Committee that only one text for each authority should be drawn up. In any case, Eccles’ contention prevailed and two reports were prepared by the Committee, eight copies of which are enclosed: (1) Documents AS/SA(2)5 and (2) AS/SA(2)4.³ The first document was approved by Benvenuti, Charpentier, Rip, Gerns, and, according to Charpentier’s statement, by Ürgüplü in absentia, and the second by Eccles, of course, and Federspiel (who telephoned from Copenhagen to the effect that he supported the Eccles proposal). Thus, the voting of the Special Committee represented the usual alignment of Great Britain and Scandinavia against the Continental countries.

Charpentier’s report recommends the establishment of a High Authority for Agriculture which would function on the basis of majority voting, while Eccles’ report recommends the creation of a limited Authority to which all member countries of the Council of Europe could accede and whose decisions would take the form of recommendations to governments and would be arrived at through unanimity in voting. The rapporteur, who is said to be a close friend of Monsieur Pflimlin, former Minister of Agriculture, modeled his project on that of Pflimlin. The difference between the two proposals is best illustrated by certain quotations from them. For example, the Charpentier report contains these statements:

“The organisation of European agricultural markets will contribute to the economic and political integration of the European nations and to the development of a genuine European solidarity.

“The creation of a High Authority for Agriculture provides the best means of interesting public opinion in European problems.” (Section II, A, page 2 of Document AS/SA(2)5.)

“The method of bilateral or multilateral agreements between Member States of Europe would be doomed to failure.” (Section IV, paragraph 2, page 14 of Document AS/SA(2)5.)

“By the same token, it follows that without a European agricultural policy, there can be no large-scale development of production and no co-ordination of capital investment. The food situation in Europe will thus become progressively more difficult, and Europe will become more and more dependent on the dollar area.” (Section IV, paragraph 5, page 14, Document AS/SA(2)5.)

The following statements in the Eccles Report should be noted:

“Believing both that this type of supra-national Authority would not secure the support of all the Members of the Council of Europe and that the nature of the agricultural industry was unsuited to such an Authority, certain members of the Special Committee asked that a paper be submitted to their next meeting describing an alternative structure for a European Authority based upon the inter-governmental principle. The Report that follows has been written to fulfil this request.” (Paragraph 4, page 1, of Document AS/SA(2)4.)

“This may be attractive in theory but in practice the political, social and economic arguments against a single market are so formidable that were this long-term aim adopted, it is doubtful whether an Authority would ever be set up with adequate powers to do any useful work.” (Sub-paragraph of paragraph 9, page 3, of Document AS/SA(2)4.)

“Conclusion.

“15. The conclusion is reached that

(a) the nature of agriculture itself, and

(b) the extra-European interests of the Members of the Council of Europe rule out a supra-national Authority invested with powers to change the pattern of production and import in the Member countries.

“Instead, Part Two of this Report recommends an inter-governmental Authority composed of the representatives of governments and of the producers’ organizations, which will have no power to interfere with the individuality of national markets, but will use persuasion and goodwill to expand and rationalise the production and consumption of food in the area of its Member States.” (Page 5 of Document AS/SA(2)4.)

“Decisions of the Authority.

“23. The decisions of the Authority will take the form of recommendations to governments.

“If there is good will the rule of unanimity will prove no obstacle; if good will is lacking no form of paper constitution laying down voting by a majority will secure better results.” (Pages 8 and 9 of Document AS/SA(2)4.)

At the press conference of the Special Committee on Agriculture, held on February 27, Mr. Eccles made an apologia of his plan, stating that all the Members of the Committee were agreed on the general objectives of a European Agricultural Authority but were in disagreement on the question of how it could be achieved, and that his proposal, based on the inter-governmental principle, was against the establishment of a supra-national authority on these grounds: (1) that agriculture is a primitive industry and that it would be most difficult to change the habits and ways of thought of farmers throughout Western Europe, all of whom are different in mentality and methods, anyway; (2) that agriculturists are already well organized in producers’ associations, and (3) that the British Government could not abandon to a supra-national authority decisions regarding the importation of food into Great Britain, since Great Britain must know where food is to come from. He stressed the points that he wanted to avoid an authority similar to the Schuman Plan, in which only six countries had joined, and that all the countries members of the Council of Europe must be parties to the authority, because agriculture and the importation of food affected them all.

In defending his own report at the press conference, Monsieur Charpentier took particular exception to paragraphs No. 7 and No. 18 of the Eccles report. He expressed disagreement with the contention of Eccles that farmers were so diverse in their methods and manner of thought that they could not be brought to agreement, citing in argument a recent international conference of beet growers who had all reached an accord on their problems. Charpentier said that Eccles’ ideas, as embodied in his report, did not go far enough, since they envisaged only “recommendations” by the Agricultural Authority to the various governments and, furthermore, even these recommendations could be adopted only through a unanimous vote. He himself was in favor of a two-thirds majority for the Authority in voting decisions.

Upon being questioned by a newspaper correspondent, Signor Benvenuti backed up Charpentier’s contention that the Eccles Plan did not go far enough and asserted that any Agricultural Authority established under the Council of Europe must be similar to the Schuman Plan; in a word, that there must be an agreement on federalist lines, whether or not all the Council of Europe States chose to enter into it. The Italian said that if the Special Committee had adopted the Eccles proposal it would have shirked the mission which had been assigned to it.

Certain background information, which may be of interest, was furnished me by the Counselor of Committee Services of the Secretariat, who attended the meetings of the Special Committee. Charpentier announced in a Committee meeting that the French Government planned to call a conference for the establishment of a European Agricultural Authority along the lines of the Schuman Plan and, according to my informant, Eccles rudely countered that the British Government would not accept an invitation to such a conference. During the course of the discussions Eccles insisted on the general thesis that there should be no more division of Western Europe along the lines of the Schuman Plan; that if Europe should become really divided, all vital decisions in international affairs would be taken by the United States and that, in any case, a divided Europe would be of no use whatever to the United States. (Quite incidentally, the Secretariat official in question told me that Mr. Eccles was slated to be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer in the event of a Conservative victory at the polls.) As noted above, the Italian, the Frenchman, the Netherlander, the German, and the Turk voted in favor of the Charpentier Report. However, Mr. Eccles expressed doubt in the Committee that Mr. Ürgüplü, the Turk, had actually given his approval. It seems that Herr Gerns supported the Charpentier Plan with these reservations: (1) Germany is not now entirely master of its own economy; (2) the German attitude on such questions as a European Agricultural Authority must depend on how international affairs develop, e.g., if it appeared that Russia would afford Western Europe a breathing space, for example, of five years, he would be prepared to have Germany make the experiment provided for in the Charpentier Plan, but if it appeared that Russia would attack Western Europe within a year or two he would prefer the Eccles Plan.

After the press conference, Monsieur Jacques Camille Paris, Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, who seemed pleased that the Charpentier Report had been adopted and the Eccles Report defeated, told me that both reports would undoubtedly be thoroughly debated in the forthcoming session of the Consultative Assembly, and that possibly both would be approved in order that those countries desirous of going the whole hog might enter the Charpentier Plan and that all member countries might adhere to the Eccles Plan.⁴

George D. Andrews

1. Copies to Paris for Embassy and OSR, London, Rome, Ankara, Copenhagen, The Hague, and Frankfurt.
2. Not found in Department of State files.
2. Not found in Department of State files.
3. Not printed.
4. In despatch 4392 from London, March 16, Second Secretary of Embassy William Kling commented that the Charpentier Report was defective on two counts: First, it attempted “to accomplish on an international basis objectives which have been difficult, if not almost impossible, to attain on a national basis,” and second that Charpentier’s plan “is essentially restrictionist in character” and would work to the advantage of agricultural countries like France but to the disadvantage of the importing nations such as the United Kingdom. (840.20/3–1651)