Born in 1888 in Cognac,
Jean Monnet spent much of his youth in his father's cognac business.
During World War I , he worked in Britain, organising supplies and
fostering economic cooperation between France and Britain. As a result
of his efforts in this job, he was appointed Deputy Secretary General
in the League of Nations in 1920. Three years later, however, he gave
in his notice and returned to work in the family business.
During the Second World
War Monnet came back to work in the area of international economic
cooperation again. He conceived a plan for a union between France
and Britain which was signed by De Gaulle and Churchill in 1940.
After the war, Monnet was
named Planning Commissioner, and became responsible for economic reconstruction
in France. He began working on a scheme that he eventually proposed
to Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, in 1949. The Monnet
Memorandum, as this plan is known, was the basis for the European
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), and Monnet himself became the first
President of the High Authority, which later evolved into the European
Commission.
Having worked extensively
on a European Defence Community, eventually rejected by the French
Parliament, he founded the Action Committee for the United States
of Europe. He continued working for European integration until his
death in 1979.
To a great extent, the
process of European integration has followed the approach made up
by Monnet in 1949. To integrate gradually more and more economic areas
in order to pave the way to the final objective: political union.
Jean Monnet died in 1979.
Juan Carlos Ocaña
(1)
Jean Monnet, memorandum to Robert
Schuman and Georges
Bidault (4th May, 1950)
Wherever we look in the
present world situation we see nothing but deadlock - whether it be
the increasing acceptance of a war that is thought to be inevitable,
the problem of Germany, the continuation of French recovery, the organisation
of Europe, the very place of France in Europe and in the world.
From such a situation
there is only one way of escape: concrete action on a limited but
decisive point, bringing about on this point a fundamental
change and gradually modifying
the very terms of all the problems.
The continuation of France's
recovery will be halted if the question of German industrial production
and its competitive capacity is not rapidly solved.
Already Germany is asking
to increase her production from 11 to 14 million tons. We shall refuse,
but the Americans will insist. Finally, we shall state our reservations
but we shall give in. At the same time, French production is levelling
off or even falling.
Merely to state these
facts makes it unnecessary to describe in great detail what the consequences
will be: Germany expanding, German dumping on export markets; a call
for the protection of French industries; the halting or camouflage
of trade liberalisation; the reestablishment of prewar cartels; perhaps
an orientation of German expansion towards the East, a prelude to
political agreements; France fallen back into the rut of limited,
protected production.
The USA do not want things
to take this course. They will accept an alternative solution if it
is dynamic and constructive, especially if it is proposed by France.
At the present moment,
Europe can be brought to birth only by France. Only France can speak
and act.
But if France does not
speak and act now, what will happen? A group will form around the
United States, but in order to wage the Cold War with greater force.
The obvious reason is that the countries of Europe are afraid and
are seeking help. Britain will draw closer and closer to the United
States; Germany will develop rapidly, and we shall not be able to
prevent her being rearmed. France will be trapped again in her former
Malthusianism, and this will lead inevitably to her being effaced.
(2)
Jean Monnet, letter to Rene Pleven (23rd August, 1950)
Decisions are imposed
by events and each is taken in isolation. We are soldiering on in
Indochina. Why? The movement in Asia is Asian, against the foreigner
whoever he happens to be. How can our military effort in Indochina
succeed? In my opinion, all this is absurd and dangerous. We are operating
with partners. These partners happen to be the most powerful in the
world, they have helped us, and without them we could not have resolved
our "material" troubles after the war. But their help, which
has been so great, has seduced them and us into bad habits. Their
help has been material. They continue to think in material terms.
What they need, and we need with them, is a political concept, that
is, a spiritual and ethical one.
I propose you bring to
the partnership a strong, constructive concept as well as a determination
to build up a stout
external defence); the establishment of a structured Atlantic free
world, accommodating the diversity of its three constituent parts,
the United States, the British Empire, and continental Western Europe
federated around an expanded Schuman Plan. We would transform our
archaic social conditions and come to laugh at our present fear of
Russia.
The hope lies in the fact
that the team leader is the United States. Of all the countries of
the West, it is the readiest to accept change and listen to strong
straight talk, so long as one throws a constructive idea into the
ring. The United States are not imperialist, they are efficient. Alone,
they will not develop the political vision of which the world stands
in need. I think that is our task.
(3)
Jean Monnet, Prospect for a New Europe (1959)
The Community's institutions
consist of a Council of Ministers, a European Economic Commission,
an Assembly, which is a kind of Parliament, and a Court of Justice,
which is an embryo Supreme Court. What we have is a system of checks
and balances similar to that in most constitutions.
The Council of Ministers
is designed to bring together national views, the views of the six
governments. It meets at intervals. Each government is represented
in the Council by its Foreign Minister or by one or more other Ministers,
such as the Finance, Transport or Agricultural Ministers, as the subject
matter requires.
The continuing, day-to-day
executive work of the Community is handled by the nine-member European
Economic commission. The Commission is responsible
to the Assembly of the Community. It defends the common interests
of the Community and represents the Community viewpoint, rather
than national views. It acts by majority vote in all things.
The Commission has numerous
real powers, specified in the Treaty, which it exercises on its own
authority. Where general rules have to be set, the Council of Ministers
makes the decisions. But it must do so on the proposals
of the Commission. It cannot amend the Commission's proposals except
by unanimous vote.
(4)
Stanley Cleveland, a member of the team administering the Marshall
Aid, wrote about the way Jean Monnet
conducted a meeting.
He never wrote anything in his life, as far as I know; he developed
the ideas and let
other people write them up for him. But whenever Monnet attacked a
new problem he would gather a bunch of people around him. Some of
them would be his intimates - Hirsch, Uri - people who were close
to him. Tommy (Tomlinson) when he was alive, and others. Some would
be people he hardly knew but had somehow laid his hands on. They knew
a lot about the particular subject. He would begin a sort of non-stop
meeting. It could go on sometimes for a period of one or two weeks
- hours and hours a day. It generally started out with a rambling
discussion of the subject in which relevant facts would be brought
out. People would begin to argue (these were a very argumentative
bunch). Gradually two or three approaches and positions would develop
in the group. Monnet would remain silent, occasionally provoking reaction,
but not saying much. Then gradually, as the conversation developed
- and it often took several days or even a week before this happened
- he began venturing a little statement of his own. Usually it was
a very simple statement, just a few words, almost a slogan. It distilled,
out of all this argument among highly verbal, brilliant people, a
couple of kernels of an idea. These he would throw into the conversation.
Then people would react to him. Gradually, Monnet would begin to expose
a little more in a few sentences, then in a couple of paragraphs.
The process then was that people in the group who had been arguing
against each other would all turn against him. They would argue with
him, indicating all the things that were wrong about what he was saying.
Monnet would listen, reformulate his ideas - taking into
account what somebody had said, refusing to heed what somebody else
had said. At this point, he would begin to come out with a formulated
concept, an idea. It was usually action-oriented and contained all
of the necessary elements. Then he would go through what was, in some
ways, the most excruciating part of the process. Yet it was the ultimate
refinement. Monnet would go on saying the same thing, over and over
again, in practically the same words, occasionally modifying a detail
to take account of a legitimate criticism. People would still argue
with him but the arguments would die out because he would have taken
into account all of the legitimate arguments. In the end, there was
in Monnet's head, and ready to put on paper, a perfectly formulated
idea.
History
of the European Union: Integration Process and European Citizenship
