Basic HTML Version
trations have had in a united Eu–
rope as a political objective. That's
not what government officials say.
They say they are still in favor of it
- but it
is
said with less enthusiasm.
The important point is that the Eu–
ropeans don't believe the U. S. gov–
ernment has the conviction which
previous administrations have had.
Q.
A recent
GaUup poU,
commissioned
and paid for by the Common Market,
, indicated that 55% of the American
public still doesn't know what the 15-
year-old Common Market is. What
has been your experience on this,
in
your contacts across America?
SCHAETZEL:
I have found that there
is still vast ignorance regarding the
Common Market in the U. S.
among the general public, although
not so rnuch arnong the people and
audiences l'm more often in contact
with. Since I left Brussels in October
1972, I have spent a great deal of
time traveling around the
U.
S.,
speaking to various groups. Out of
this experience, I've been struck by
the continuing interest in the whole
idea of a united Europe on the part
of Americans. They have not yet
had their minds poisoned by the dif–
ficulties. I don' t believe we've been
condemned to a certain attitude or
relationship. The whole rnatter is
still wide open.
" A Task of Extraordinary
Proportions"
Q .
The ambivalent attitude on the
part of the United States is one
thing. But it appears that the various
member nations of the European
Community themselves have highly
divergent views on what they want
their association to become.
SCHAETZEL:
Right. This is one of
the real difficulties, because the
Common Market process began in
1950, less than 25 years ago. The
creation of a united Europe was a
task of extraordinary proportions.
8
Nothing like it had ever been at–
tempted before. And then , of
course, by 1958 carne the De Gaulle
phenomenon. De Gaulle carne back
into power, and France, which had
really initiated the whole affair, then
became the major problem in the
European construction. De Gaulle
had never believed in it.
Q .
It appears as if the Common
Market, formally established on
January 1, 1958, just barely got in
"under the wire" before De Gaulle
resumed power a few months later.
SCHAETZEL:
As a matter of fact,
when De Gaulle carne back to
power in 1958, there was the fear on
the part of many Europeans, in–
cluding a large number of French,
that he would destroy the whole
business then and there. The fact
that he didn't astonished them. But
nonetheless, frorn 1958 until about
1968, the question was really the
survival of the European Commu–
nity rather than how fa r it could be
pushed along.
Now it wasn't until Pompidou
[De Gaulle's successor] carne in that
the Community seemed to have a
new lease on life. That permitted
the British negotiations which were
finished last year, with the British
coming in on January 1, 1973. The
Comrnunity
is
now going into a
phase which wíll last for severa!
years, during which time its mem–
bers will decide what the structure
of the new Europe is to be. A Euro–
pean said to me in the course of my
recent trip, a mao who had been in
it from the beginning, "This is a
hundred-year proposition." That's
the sort of dimension in which they
are thinking. It's a very hard dimen–
sion for Americans to comprehend .
Europe Has " No
Acknowledged Leader"
Q .
Yet the political leaders of Eu–
rope set rather impressive guidelines
and target dates for the Community.
They talk about wanting to achieve
various policies by 1980 or 1985....
SCHAETZEL:
They set targets, and
targets are useful. They mayor may
not make them, but at least they're
trying to maintain a momentum.
But you made an observation about
the differing views among the vari–
ous European member states. This
is certainly true. The sharpest im–
pression 1 have - the essence of the
European story that 1 carne back
with from my last trip - was of the
great confusion among Europeans.
Among the people intimately in–
volved in the whole process of Euro–
pean construction, there is no
common strategy, common policy or
acknowledged leader to whom the
good and true turn for advice or
guidance as to what to do next.
Q .
But what about the vast ' 'Eu–
rocracy'' centered at Common Mar–
ket headquarters
in
Brussels?
SCHAETZEL:
The institutions of the
Community are relatively weak.
There is no body which stands out
as being the institutional spokesman
for this new Europe. The Commu–
nity Commission under Walter
Hallstein atternpted to go in this di–
rection back in the mid- I960s. But it
got into a figh t with De Gaulle and
has really not recovered. The repre–
sentatives of the member govern–
ments, the Council of Ministers, are
not a body which can perform this
task very well. Jean Monnet [the so–
called father of the Common Mar–
ket) is a man of 85, and while he is
sti ll remarkabl y vigorous in–
tellectually, obviously he cannot
perform the function which he per–
formed so remarkably in the past.
1 was talking to Lord George
Brown when I was in London re–
cently, and we got into this question
of leadership. He made an observa–
tion many people make these days
- that this is the period of mediocre
PLAIN TRUTH October 1973