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

No. 9

740.00/5–951: Despatch

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

confidential
No. 384

Strasbourg, May 9, 1951.

Ref: Consulate’s Telegram No. 137, May 7, 1951, 6:00 p.m.²

Subject: Debate in the Consultative Assembly, Council of Europe, on the Report of the Committee of Ministers, on the address of D.U. Stikker, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers and President of the Council of the OEEC, and on Revision of the Statute.³

As reported in the Consulate’s telegram No. 137, May 7, 6:00 p.m., the address of Mr. D.U. Stikker as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers and President of the Council of the OEEC on the morning of May 7 was, in general, most favorably received by the Assembly; subsequent speakers have continued to pay tribute to the speech. Not only British Conservative Delegates, but also various other Delegates, have acclaimed the speech as marking the beginning of true parliamentarianism in the Council of Europe.

Some of the salient parts of Mr. Stikker’s speech, copies of which were forwarded to the Department with despatch No. 381, May 8, 1951,⁴ are summarized herewith:

Introductory Remarks

In his introductory remarks Mr. Stikker said that “It is my deep conviction that Europe will not be built in a day, nor by setting out a constitution on paper”, and that “the submission of reports of the Schuman organization and probably of other European organizations maintaining a liaison with Strasbourg in one way or another might in future years lead to the presence of more members of the Committee of Ministers or their alternates in the Assembly.”

Message to the Assembly

The speaker stated that the habit of European consultation was growing far more rapidly than the constitutional framework set up for the work of the Council of Europe; that the previous year the Assembly had made the “wise decision to go slowly but surely and to avoid forcing issues which might lead to dissolution instead of to unison”; and that there were two points in the message of the Committee of Ministers to the Assembly of considerable importance: (1) The principle of partial agreements, enabling some member governments to acquiesce in a proposition which they feel they could not for the present bring into practice themselves, has been adopted by the Committee of Ministers which will study the possibilities of implementing this principle, and (2) The proposals for the development of the Assembly’s consultative functions met with the complete agreement of member governments, which are studying a formula which will take into account the constitutional implications of “this far-reaching decision”.

Europe in World Politics

The Chairman of the Committee of Ministers asserted that the closer cooperation achieved in the last five years among the nations of Europe had been brought about only partly by idealism and to a large extent was the result of the “bitter necessity” of uniting the remaining forces of the European countries in order to escape from being overrun by an invasion from the East; and that such developments as the attack on South Korea and conflicts between sovereign states in Asia might ultimately affect the well being and security even of countries previously “embodied in neutrality”.

Western Union

Apropos of efforts made so far to establish a link between the Brussels Treaty Organization and the Council of Europe, Stikker remarked that the Brussels Powers Organization had reacted most cautiously to Monsieur Mollet’s proposal that the Committees of Experts of the Brussels Treaty Organization, who were engaged upon important and constructive tasks under the supervision of the permanent Commission of the Western Union be transferred to an organization like the Council of Europe, which was meeting only once or twice a year. He said that in his opinion the desire of the Assembly for closer relations between the Council of Europe and the Western Union could be made by establishing a method of regular communication between the two organizations, including the exchange of documents and periodical reports on the cultural and social activities of the Western Union.

Functional Organizations

Stikker emphasized the “inescapable fact” that functional integration can be successful only when it is spread over as many factors of the economic life of as many countries as possible, and that the Schuman Plan marked a hopeful beginning but constituted by no means the end of the road. In concluding his comments on functional organizations, he expressed his devotion to the cause of functionalism when he stated that the Assembly should take a long term view of things, since the “fruition of its work does not lie in tomorrow but in a future further removed”.

The OEEC Report to the Assembly

With regard to the multiplicity of international organizations in Europe, Stikker said that he would like to see a gradual simplification “in the architectural style of the House of Europe” come about as soon as conditions should permit, but that the integration of economic and social forces on a European scale was of necessity a long term objective, presenting many delicate problems and requiring “caution coupled with determination”.

Atlantic Cooperation

Mr. Stikker said that the co-existence of the Atlantic Alliance and the Council of Europe might give rise to some new form of inter-governmental cooperation, making for Atlantic unity, and that the peoples of Europe had many reasons to be deeply grateful to the two great democracies of North America for their generous assistance, failing which a free and democratic Europe might now no longer exist.

In conclusion, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers stated that European military expenditures were the inevitable consequence of “our failure to reach a common understanding with other nations on the globe to whom we feel we can only talk with confidence when backed up by sufficient strength”, and that the moral force of a harmonious Europe could still win a peaceful victory over “those who are as yet unwilling to give priority to the power of reason over the weight of brutal force.”

The first speaker on the topics under discussion was Mr. Suad Hayri Ürgüplü, Turkish Independent, who declared that the members of the Assembly were dissipating their energies on problems of only local interest instead of establishing cooperation in social, economic and industrial fields, such as in the distribution of raw materials and in transportation. It was Mr. Duncan Sandys, British Conservative, however, who seemed to set the pace for most of the speeches concerning Stikker’s address, the Report of the Committee of Ministers, and the revision of the Statute. He started off by stating that for the first time he felt that the members of the Assembly were in a parliament and that if the practice, the tone, and the manner of such speeches as Mr. Stikker’s were to become an example and a regular practice in Assembly affairs, the Assembly was set upon a journey which would produce constructive and fruitful results. With respect to the rejection by the Committee of Ministers of “the more far-reaching proposals for the reform of the Statute”, Sandys expressed the opinion that there was very little likelihood that the Committee of Ministers would in the near future decide to reconsider their attitude, and that, therefore, it would be fruitless to reopen the discussion. He stressed the importance of constructive action and influence, which could best be brought about through the Specialized Authorities. The speaker placed great emphasis on the fact that the Governments were now submitting their policies and their actions in the whole field of intergovernmental activity in Europe for discussion and criticism in the Assembly.

Speaking as a Functionalist, Mr. Rolf F. Edberg, Swedish Social Democrat, remarked that whether the members of the Assembly called themselves Federalists or Functionalists, they must have a common desire to make the Assembly a strong and efficient body; asked if there was not a junction where the Federalists and the Functionalists could meet, “bury the hatchet”, and start working together on building a better Europe; and said that he himself interpreted “the cautious observation” in the message from the Committee of Ministers as a request that the members try to find such a junction. Furthermore, if the members of the Assembly kept on discussing constitutional projects, they would only keep alive the controversies between Federalism and Functionalism and would thus proclaim the weakness of the Assembly; therefore, the Assembly should direct its efforts toward immediate and practical, but limited, tasks. He suggested three fields on which efforts should be concentrated: (1) coordination with the OEEC and emphasis on Specialized Authorities; (2) efforts, “even if gradual”, toward a European customs union, and (3) a solution of the refugee problem in Europe.

In the afternoon Mlle. Klompé, Netherlands Catholic People’s Party and Rapporteur of the General Affairs Committee, making a plea to end the friction between the Committee of Ministers and the Consultative Assembly and, recalling the decision made in August 1950 not to split the Council but to strengthen it through the setting up of Specialized Authorities, stated that in the majority opinion of the Committee on General Affairs it would be inefficient to take up the Assembly’s time with another lengthy debate on the revision of the Statute and that the Assembly must proceed to practical work; however, she urged that the Assembly must insist on its recommendations, that the reform of the Statute must remain on the Assembly’s agenda, and that the question should be taken up again when the Assembly considered the situation to be more favorable.

As reported in the telegram under reference, Mr. R.W.G. MacKay, British Socialist, disagreeing with various statements made by Mr. Stikker, insisted that the OEEC and the Brussels Treaty Organization be brought together under the Committee of Ministers, that the revision of the Statute be put on the agenda for the fall session, and that concrete conventions on currency and customs barriers be discussed and approved by the Assembly during the second half of the 1951 session. In addition, MacKay attacked the “long term view” so often advocated by Stikker and postponement of action by the Committee of Ministers; by implication, he commented that the Assembly was getting “lulled into a sense of complacency” by such things as Stikker’s speech and was achieving very little in the eyes of the people of Western Europe; and he asserted that the Assembly was not even a consultative body, because it was never consulted on any problem at all. He said that the present difficulties were too great because of “the escapism of this Assembly”, it being so much easier to discuss defense, on which nothing could be done, or the Schuman Plan, “which has come into being regardless of our existence and which would have been carried into being even if we had not existed”; that it was not an issue between Federalism and Functionalism, words which should no longer play a part in the language of the Assembly, but the plain fact that the governments of Europe were not prepared to say in advance that the Council of Europe could deal with three or more matters of importance to Europe; and that the major work of any parliament was legislation. In conclusion, MacKay asked that, in considering the agenda for next fall’s session, the Standing Committee face the problem of changes in the Statute which would get the Assembly away from being a consultative body to being one that would make definite proposals, and that the Standing Committee also put on the agenda, not twenty-five items, but the two items of customs barriers and European currency.

Monsieur Marius Moutet, French Socialist, voiced the opinion that the Assembly would have to remain consultative, since it was the Governments which eventually made the decisions; that the Assembly now believed that theoretical discussions on amendments to the Statute were somewhat useless and unrealistic; and that, however, the Assembly still had the initiative of taking up such projects as Specialized Authorities for Agriculture and Transportation and the lowering of customs tariffs.

Getting away from the subjects under discussion, Monsieuer Henri Rolin, Belgian Socialist, read a motion on the question of property ownership in connection with the Convention of Human Rights, which motion had been put forward by him as Document No. AS(3)25 (Consulate’s despatch No. 381, May 8, 1951). (This motion is scheduled to be discussed during the present session.)

Following the line already taken by other speakers, Mr. Gulek, Turkish Delegate, asserted that what the Assembly needed was not sensational achievements but positive steps, not too much bureaucracy or too much talk, but definite achievements; that more success was possible in the economic field than in any other; that if the OEEC and the Council of Europe were integrated the Council of Europe would have a permanent economic organization with a political background; and that any action taken by the Council of Europe on the question of defense might form a link between those countries which are members of the Atlantic Pact and others which are not. Gulek pointedly asked why certain countries, among them Turkey, were not invited to the meeting of certain countries at Paris in March for the discussion of the creation of a European army.

Mr. Van der Goes van Naters, Netherlands Labor Party, advocated the adoption of the La Malfa proposal for a definition of the consultative powers of the Assembly and the MacKay proposal for an amendment to the Statute, the implementation of which would require the presence at all of the Assembly’s debates of representatives of the Committee of Ministers.

Mr. Herman Smitt Ingebretsen, Norwegian Conservative, referring to MacKay’s speech, said that two of the questions most difficult of solution were those of customs barriers and a European currency; and he suggested that the Assembly pay attention to such “small things” as a European postage stamp and the abolition of visas since definite accomplishment in such minor fields would appeal to and inspire the common man and thus make him a supporter of the Council of Europe, which would render the Council far stronger than would any changes in the Statute.

Mr. H. L. d’A. Hopkinson, British Conservative, expressed the British Functionalist point of view in stating that he was quite certain that the people of Great Britain would “not have tolerated a progress in our affairs here one inch faster than our rate of accomplishment up to date.” In addition, Hopkinson declared that the admission of Germany as a member of the Council of Europe had brought Germany from the position of an outcast, with no rights or outside contacts, to the status of a respected friend and partner in this and other international organizations; he asked whether the Member Governments had explained to the Parliaments of the British Commonwealth Governments the importance of the Assembly’s invitation to them to send observers to the present session of the Assembly, in view of the fact that there was not one Commonwealth observer present; and he urged the Assembly to encourage the morale and to build up the courage of those people living behind the Iron Curtain, expressing regret that there was no suggestion in the Report of the Committee of Ministers for joint action in the propaganda field.

Mr. P.J.S. Serrarens, Netherlands Catholic People’s Party, said that it was vital for the Consultative Assembly and the Committee of Ministers to cooperate closely and that the Assembly should take no action that would estrange the member governments of the Council of Europe; he hoped that the British and the Scandinavians could be drawn into the Specialized Authorities.

On the morning of May 8 Mr. Stefano Jacini, Italian Christian Democrat, expressed “Italian satisfaction” at the tone of Mr. Stikker’s speech, stating that it indicated the change in atmosphere between the legislative and executive powers which had taken place in the last two years. He added that the Assembly now had more scope for thought and action, even if it was still only an advisory body, and that nothing would be achieved by hastening its natural process of evolution to a state of authority.

Mr. Constantin Tsaldaris, Greek People’s Party, observed that people were now getting discouraged with the Council of Europe and that the Ministers’ rejection of the Assembly’s proposed reforms of the Statute was regrettable, but that the unity of the Council of Europe must at all costs be safeguarded and that “the flames of difference between the Assembly and the Committee of Ministers should not be fanned.”

In thanking Mr. Stikker for having devoted so much space to the question of the creation of closer links between the Council of Europe and the Brussels Treaty Organization in their consideration of social and cultural problems, Mr. Victor Larock, Belgian Socialist, said that the cultural provisions of the Brussels Treaty should be extended to all members of the Council of Europe, that the “idea of Europe” was at present only holding its ground, and that in some countries there was an apparent renaissance of narrow nationalism, which could only be defeated by intellectual weapons.

Although remarking that the revolutionary vitality of the Assembly of 1949 had noticeably diminshed, since people were now thinking more of survival than of European unity, Mr. Grégoire Kassimatis, Greek Liberal Venizeliste, made a plea that, instead of asking for immediate reforms of the Statute, the Assembly attempt to organize its consultative functions and take a detailed interest in the work of the Specialized Authorities.

At the conclusion of the talk of Mr. Kassimatis, President Spaak said that there were no more speakers on the report from the Committee of Ministers and that the Assembly would now proceed to discuss the report from the OEEC. However, subsequent speakers have continued to refer to the report of the Committee of Ministers, although the debate is now centering on the OEEC report, the proposal of Mr. Edelman for the establishment of a Joint Atlantic Resources and Purchasing Board and the report of the Committee on Economic Questions on Full Employment.

George D. Andrews

1. Repeated to Paris, London, and Frankfurt.
2. Telegram 137 summarized the address and debates discussed here. (740.00/5–751)
3. During 1951, the various branch organizations of the Council of Europe held a number of meetings. The Committee of Ministers met three times at Paris: March 16–17, May 2–4, and August 1–3. During the first two meetings, it was agreed to advance the Federal Republic of Germany to full membership. The Consultative Assembly held its Third Annual Session at Strasbourg in two parts, the first from May 5 to May 15, the second from November 26 to December 12. In addition, the General Affairs Committee of the Consultative Assembly met September 27–29 and various other committees established by the Assembly were in session during the course of the year. The Embassy in France and the Consulate at Strasbourg kept the Department of State fully informed of the course of debate and discussion in the meetings of the various organizations; documentation is in file 740.00.
4. Not printed.