V The Council of Europe

V The Council oj Europe Background. The several movements advocating a .United States of Europe not only supported cooperation on an intergovernmental basis, but also considered it most important and urgent to form an organization which would represent people and parliaments as well as administrations. In May 1948, the Hague European Congress, convened by the International Committee of the Movements for European Unity (later called the European Movement), passed a resolution supporting the creation of a European Assembly. It subsequently submitted detailed recommendations to the Brussels Treaty Powers for realizing such an Assembly. When the French and Belgian governments immediately endorsed the recommendations, they were submitted to the Brussels Treaty Council in September 1948 for official discussion. The European Movement's recommendations were considered by the Foreign Ministers of the five Brussels powers at a meeting in Paris in October 1948 where divergent views arose between the British and other members of the committee. The British suggested the formation of a European Committee of Ministers, whereas the other members favored the idea of an Assembly. After negotiations among the member countries, a draft of a Statute was prepared that provided for both institutions—a Committee of Ministers and a Consultative Assembly. During the following spring, the Western Union powers invited Italy, Ireland, and the Scandinavian countries to participate in a preparatory conference for the creation of the Council of Europe. The ten powers concluded final negotiations and signed the Statute on May 5, 1949. It went into effect in August 1949 after ratification by seven signatory governments.1 1 Department of State publication 4492, 1952, Council of Europe, Foreign Affairs Outline No. 26; European Movement and the Council of Europe, Publication on be191 192 STEPS TOWARD UNION Aims of the Council of Europe. The Statute instituted a Consultative Assembly to represent European public opinion and a Committee of Ministers to represent the governments. The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity among its members by discussing questions of common concern and by agreeing on common action to be taken in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters, and to maintain and further human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Council of Europe thus is intended to be an institution for the coordination of the political activities of its member states.2 Member States. The original signatory governments were Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Greece and Turkey also joined the Council in August 1949, and Iceland in March 1950. The German Federal Republic became an associate member in March 1950 and a full member in May 1951. The Saar became an associate member in March 1950, which entitles her to representation in the Consultative Assembly but not in the Committee of Ministers.

Organization. The Statute of the Council of Europe provides for the creation of three organs—the Committee of Ministers representing the governments of the member states; the Consultative Assembly composed of representatives from the national parliaments; and finally the Secretariat which is at the joint disposal of the organs of the Council of Europe (Articles 13-37). The Committee of Ministers is the organ which takes executive action on behalf of the Council of Europe. It decides on the measures required to further the aims of the Council and may recommend to governments the enactment of agreements and conventions. The Consultative Assembly submits recommendations to the Committee of Ministers. Its members are nominated by their respective parliaments in whatever manner the parliaments determine. The number of seats each member state may hold is determined by the size of its population. Each representative speaks and votes as an individual.

The Secretariat, which consists of a SecretaryGeneral, a Deputy SecretaryGeneral, and such other staff as may be required, is aphalf of the European Movement. Hutchinson, London, 1949; John Goormaghtigh, European Integration, International Conciliation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York, 1953, p. 90 et seq.; Council of Europe, The Union of Europe: Its Progress, Problems, Prospects and Place in the Western World, Strasbourg, October, 1951. 2 Council of Europe, Ibid., pp. 16-17; see also Statute of the Council of Europe, Article 1, in European Movement and the Council of Europe, Ibid., p. 170, also in Department of State publication 3748, 1950.

THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE 193 pointed by the Consultative Assembly on the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers. It is located at the seat of the Council in Strasbourg. The Work of the Council. After the Council of Europe was established, the Assembly proclaimed the political aim to be the creation of a European political authority with limited functions but real powers. In the economic field, the Assembly adopted several resolutions regarding the European Payments Union and the formation of the Coal and Steel Community. Debates in the Assembly played an important role in the negotiations which led to the Community. Other debates and proposals of the Assembly have dealt with the establishment of a European code of social security. A European Convention for the protection of human rights has been signed by the members of the Committee of Ministers on the basis of a draft presented by the Assembly.3 These are the achievements of the Council of Europe during the first G.ve years of its existence. Measurable and tangible results have been very few. Of course, innumerable speeches on European cooperation and integration were made in the Assembly which served as a useful sounding board for the several unification movements.

But when the sterile character of the numerous discussions and debates became quite obvious, many of the Council's ardent supporters resigned or refused to serve as delegates in the meetings of the Assembly. Gradually public interest declined to the point of indifference. SOME CRITICISM Welfare and Socialist Ideologies Are the Reasons for Failure. When the several movements striving for unification of Europe realized the failure of the Council in bringing about any degree of unification, they decided to attempt another approach towards European unification. If only the true representatives of the people, the parliamentarians, or the people themselves could be brought together, they said, unification could be achieved. Where people can discuss their problems and settle them in mutual understanding through honest bargaining, cooperation and unification can be achieved. But let us look more closely at this popular point of view. The institution of democratic government reflects the state of public opinion. Its mandate is received from the constituency whose opinion decides what policies shall be conducted and who shall put them into effect. The assumption that the constituency may favor the 3 Council of Europe, Ibid., p. 18.

194 STEPS TOWARD UNION project of European unification while the government it elects may oppose unification is erroneous. It contradicts the fundamental principle of democratic government. The true obstacle to unification is ideology. Wherever the ideology of economic nationalism prevails, policies of economic nationalism are conducted. Wherever public opinion favors government protection of industries or other policies of government intervention, protectionist policies are conducted. Wherever public opinion rejects the inevitable effects of interstate unification, they are rejected on all levels of government. If, for example, the Dutch people approve of the project of unification except in the area of their own industries, which would suffer from readjustment and unemployment, their representatives in the Dutch parliament and in the Council of Europe, too, will basically agree to unification, Dutch industries excluded. The Dutch Prime Minister will also approve of unification, except in industry. If the German farmers say: "Unification yes, but not for us farmers," the German representative in the Council of Europe, too, will say: "Unification yes, but not for farmers." And the German chancellor will echo the same approval with the same limitation. If public opinion in France approves of unification but not its consequences, the French parliamentarians will say, "Unification yes, but also protection from the consequences of unification." And the French Premier will also "basically approve" of unification, but continue to conduct policies of protection from unification. Of course, no matter how convincingly the statesman or politician speaks for unification in one speech and for protection from the effects of unification in another, he will not promote both causes to simultaneous fruition because of their incompatible natures.

An Opportunity for Representatives. The failure of the Council of Europe to attain its admirable objectives is currently attributed to several causes. The actual provisions of the Statute itself are blamed: the lack of power of the Consultative Assembly and the veto right of the Committee of Ministers. The fact that governments are not prepared to accept more binding obligations and that the representatives are responsible to no one but themselves also comes in for a share of the blame.4 At this point we need not enter into an analysis and detailed refutation of these spurious and superficial notions inasmuch as we have already found the ideologies of government welfare and socialism to be the true reason for failure. However, we wish especially to reject the statement that the cir4 Max Sorensen, "The Council of Europe," in The Year Book of World Affairs 1952 (London Institute of World Affairs, London, Stevens and Sons), p. 88 et seq.

THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE 195 cumstance which made representatives solely responsible to themselves largely contributed to the failure of the Council of Europe. It is our belief that this very freedom of the representatives provided them with rare opportunity to further the ultimate aim of the Council of Europe. Being responsible to no one but themselves the parliamentarians convening in Strasbourg have the excellent opportunity to discuss the sole and true obstacle to unification: the policies of government welfare and economic nationalism. The decision and common resolution by the parliamentarians gathered at Strasbourg henceforth to refrain from such policies would have an enormous impact which may usher in a new era of peace and international cooperation. If each single representative of the Council of Europe, who is also a representative in his national parliament, would pledge to his colleagues at Strasbourg henceforth to refrain from voting for policies of economic nationalism and discriminating measures against other nationals, a most essential and important step towards peace and cooperation would be achieved. Such a decision and common pledge on the part of the parliamentarians of Strasbourg, however, have never been discussed nor even considered. The representatives rather prefer to talk about cooperation and brotherhood while in Strasbourg, and advocate government welfare and protection from foreign competition while in their national capitals. Of course, we may assume that they merely fail to perceive the heterogeneity of their activities.

The weekly schedule of a Strasbourg parliamentarian may look as follows: Monday—advocating farm parity prices and government restriction on imports of farm products Tuesday—voting for easy money policies and foreign exchange control Wednesday—voting for extensive import restrictions because of foreign exchange shortages Thursday—speech on cooperation and unification before the Council of Europe Friday—returning to his capital and advocating higher tariffs for the protection of a particular industry Saturday—speech on government welfare and international cooperation before his constituency. Meanwhile, our politician gains great reputation for his sincerity, assiduity, and ability. Of course, actual unification of Europe at the end of his busy week is further away from realization than it was at its beginning.