Basic HTML Version
--=--------------=----=---~----~~~=---~~in~
EUROPE'S UNITY MOMENTUM
DYINGOUT
JEAN MONNET. 86. thft "'Fother
of
Eu-" (for.ground).
BRUSSELS: "lf the govem–
ments of Europe don't bave the
will to build Europe, they
should-=t..m;¡j_ntain lbe illusion
that tbey do.' '
·-
Calling
itlbe "frank and bru–
tal truth," Robert Marjolio,
former European Economic
Community Vice-Pres!dent,
told EEC Commission members
in an official report tbat "na–
tional ecooomic and mone1ary
policies bave never in
25
years
been
more d.iscordant, more di–
vergent, than they are today."
According to the report's
findings, the divergence among
the Community's nine membcr
nations bas been heigbteoed by
the in1erna1ional mone1ary
crisis and the oil
crisis,
events
which ironically underlined !.he
need for just the kind of
eon–
nomic aod monetary union Eu–
rope claimed to be seeking.
lnstead, !.he resultant problems
of inJ!ation, unemployment and
trade de5ats bave
all
been
treated
as
national problems
witb little intergovemmeotal
ooordination.
Marjolin"s pessimistic
assess–
ment serves
as a
disappointing
tbeme as E'!rope marks tbe
twenty-fiflh anruversary of 1be
first step toward continental
economic - and hoped-for
political - unity.
On May
9, 1950,
Freocb For–
eign Minister Robert Schuman
issued
a
ca1l
for wbat beearne
the Europeao
Coa!
and Steel
Community (ECSq. The idea
was tbe brainchild of Frencb–
man Jean Monnel, wbo in–
tended tbat the bloc not only
revive Eutope's war-tom econ-
WEEK ENDINO MAY 24, 1975
omy, but
aJso
saw it as a means
of overcoming the mislrust and
hostility between France and
Oermany.
Aner the ECSC carne lbe
EEC aod Euratom, both in
1958.
But lbe forward momen–
tum has stagnaled since
1969
with tbe unsuccessful elfort lo
launcb the oex1 planned s1age,
an ecooomic and monetary
Union (EMU), the supposed
prelude to political integration.
"Mr.
Europe" Retires
Dealíng Europe's step-by–
step approacb to unity a.furtber
psychological blow, "Mr. Eu–
rope" bi.mself, J ean Monnet, re–
tired from public life May 9, the
very anniversary day of the
Schuman Plan.
The
86-year-old
architect of postwar Europe's
reconstruction had spent the
past twenty years as President
of tbe Action Committee for the
United States of Europe. a re–
spected lobby group. That
group formally disbanded the
sume day as Monnet retired -
after failing
to
induce someone
of the stalure of Edward Heath
or Willy Brandt 10 suooeed bim.
To many Europeans, it
seems
tbe disbandin.g of a dream as
weU.
Marjolin admitted "with re–
gret" that the step-by.step ap–
proacb of
bis
mentor, Monnet,
will not acbieve European
union as once boped. The steps
that bave alreacfy been takeo
stand
as
positivo achievements,
he sllid, but thc actual fbrma–
tion of a full monetary union, or
any other major step forward,
will
now
bave to be a
~radical
and almost instaotaneous ttans–
formation" ac!JOmpanied by
·a
"political
wiU
to unite," and an
appropriate transfer of power
from lbe present nine sovereigo
membets toa supranational au–
thonty structure.
Most of Europe's leaders ac–
knowledge the need - but few
are
willing
to force tbeir own
govemments to relinquish more
natural sovereigo
powers
to Eu–
ropean institutions.
Oo the very same day that
tbe Marjolio report was re·
leased and Monnet announced
bis retirement, West German
President Walter
Scbee~
speak–
ing in París, called for a Euro–
pean constitution giving the
legal base for
a
oommon Euro–
pean economic, foreigo aod de–
fense policy. Out his appeal fell
largely oo deaf ears.
Tbus, tbe spring of
197
5
could go down
as
an extremely
signi6cant time in European
history,
~ymboliúng
the end of
one epocb and the beginning or
another . Onc epocJr..marked
twenty-6ve years of labor 10
build a united, properous
Eu–
rope througb !.he painfully
s1ow
process ofcompromi.se, negotia–
tion, and
the
ultimate in
pa–
tience.
The next epocb remains to be
formed by otber meo. Will tbe
"radical and almost instanta–
neous transfomution" M&Jjolin
talked of come abou1? And
what would it take? Would sucb
an abtupt, as yet unforeseen,
development materialize at tbe
expense of Europe's democratic
institutions?
Realistic Europeans recog–
nize
that in.dividually, their na–
tions, stripped of old empires
and c:ommonwealths. are too
small to exercise much in·
tluence in
wotld
alfairs. But re–
maining forever suspended
halfway aloog tbe goal toward a
fblly united Westem Europe,
wbicb.. could exert force aod
power on the world sceoe, is an
extremely frustrating way to ex–
isl
Tbe Marjolin repon itself
summari2.es: "... Europeao
unity ... (is) more oecessary
tban ever
ir
tbe states or West–
em Europe are going to be able
to continue
10
play a role in
world alfairs and protecl lbem–
selves against the dangers whicb
!brea
ten them from all- sides.
Alone their impoteoce becomes
every day more obvious; only
unity can restore to them tbe
inftuence whicb they havo
losl"
o
- Henr¡ SttHt:ke
KOREA:The Next Test?
Oo tbe beels of the American
debacle
in
lndocbioa came tbe
ominous warning: "There will
be anotber test of U.S. strength
very soon ... and we'd better be
ready."The speaker was former
U.S. undersecretary of state,
Eugene Rostow, who served in
the Lyndon Jobnson adminis·
tration.
Ready or not, Korea appears
ripe for the world's next major
confrontation.
The recent activity on tbe
patt or the Nonh Korean gov–
emmenl may signa! the begin–
ning of wbat may be a oew
Communist olfensivo. ReportS
indicate that the Communist$
are digging intlltratioo tunnels
across the demilitari2.ed z.one di–
viding tbe two countries. Two
tunnels bave already been
dis–
covered (one as far
as
600
yards
into South Korean territory),
and U.S. military officials be·
lieve there may be at least two
at a more inopportune time;
American support, tbough
"guaranteed" by the
1953
Mu–
tual Defense Pact, is n.ow
more
unsure than ever . The U.S.
commitment - symbolized by
the loss of
33,000
American.
lives
in
the
19SQ..I953
Korean
War aod tbe oontinued pres·
ence in South Korea of
38,000 .
American tronps - has come
under attack from critics in
Washington. They cbarge that
American military and eco–
nomic aid - over
S11
billion in
1he last 25 years - only bolsters
a
corrupt and repressive regime.
Tbeir criticisms are similar to
earlier cbarges leveled agaJnst
pro-American govemments \jo
Ca.mbodiá
and South Vietnam.
Reeently, Soutb Korea 's
Christian
clergy, botb Roman
Catholic and Protestan!, bave
become President Park's most
severe critics. They have
been o.utspokenly condemning
-–
ENTRANCE
ro
U.N. -dug ínt•Je.,t tut>MI u•ed
ro
d•t.ct Nonh Kota•t>
lnfiltntion
tunn.ts
Hro$S
Oemi.NtMued
ZOife.
more. The Pyongyang regime is
also
jammiog
radio and televi–
sion broadcasts beamed up
from tbe south.
"DownfaU
of
the
l.mperialists~
Soutb Korean Presideot Parle.
Chuog Hee fears that the Notth
Koreans, emboldened by t!Íe
American collapse in Jn–
dochina, may "play with fire" in
attempting
a
new Communist
invasion. North Korean premier
Kim U-Sung. having just re–
tumed from Peldng · wbere be
was given
an
exttemely lavish
reception, seems to exult in tbc
possibility: "The preseot devel–
opments in Asia more viyjdly
prove that lbe
o o o
downfall or
the imperialists and their
lack–
eys is a trend in our times,
whicb no force can cbeclc."
For the Seoul govemritent the
nnewed tension couldn't come
the govemment's efforts to
stille poütical dissent. Lil<e tbe
former Diem regime in South
Vietnam, the Park govemment
stands vulnerable to !he ebarge
or religious repressioo. The
ait–
icism has beco getting
a
large
hearing in the Westem press,
and, as
a
result, moral support
for the South Korean govero–
meot is
waniog.
The cbarges of
corruption are
seco
by sorne to
be
a
justiftcation for tbe U.S. to
wilbdraw support of the Seoul
govemment.
lt
is estimated tbat over
S1
billion could be
$11
ved from the
Defense Department budget
by
withdrawing from Korea. Sucb
a pullback, bowever, migbt
openly enoourage an attack
from Nortb Korea.
lt
would
most certainly weaken the Parle.
governmeot, which tbe U.S.
S1ate Department currently
sees
(C<>Iflinu<tl
on
noxt
page.
coL 1)
,3