The Origins of the European Community
	by Alice-Catherine Carls

	More than any previous measure, the introduction of the Euro on January 1st, 2002, brought home the reality of the new Europe. At the dawn of the new millennium, the new currency gave a new semantic and concrete value to the idea of Europe. This "symbol of a greater Europe," as European Central Bank President Wim Duisenburg called it, was also the symbol of the new culture that was reaffirmed sixty years ago in the darkest hours of World War II. The men and women who defined the new Europe understood that it should be both a cultural idea and a political design, and that its construction would be both reactive and proactive. Born from crumbling national borders, priorities, and balance of power, it would also be defined by careful and reasoned goal-setting. History is an encounter between accidents and human will, but sometimes there must be several encounters, like dress rehearsals, until the dissonances are erased and the pattern adjusts to the new challenges. In the case of the European Union, the dress rehearsals started in 1919, giving it solid anchors, and making interwar projects singularly relevant today. It is perhaps because idea preceded implementation that post World War II Europe could succeed. Vision met power, thus giving the European Union a dual paternity   intellectual and political. Without the dream, the new Europe might have remained a technical-political edifice. And without the crucible of war, it might never have been born.

The Intellectuals' Debate
	The French Revolution and Napoleonic wars put nationalism and Europeanism at odds. The European idea was an antidote against violence and war, a beacon of peace in the tradition of Dante, Erasmus, and the Enlightenment, stressing the spiritual, cultural, and moral unity of Europe. It became a banner for a broad spectrum of individuals who wove its rich intellectual heritage: religious, republican, and socialist thinkers; free traders and proponents of an expansion of the Germanic confederation; the Holy See, Saint-Simon's federalist project; and even Bismarck's own diplomatic efforts. The development of the industrial world, the golden age of colonialism, the cult of science of reason, and, at the turn of the 19th century, the gathering clouds of war, brought a deep sense of civilizational fragility and despair to individuals such as Dostoevsky and Oswald Spengler. The slaughter of World War I accented this melancholy which was expressed by Paul Val‚ry in 1918 in his terse statement "We civilizations. . . we too know that we are mortal." Julien Benda evoked the political and spiritual unity of Europe while Jacques Maritain called for an "integral humanism."These early advocates stressed the commonality of European culture, which to Jose Ortega y Gasset and Miguel Unamuno was an emotional and patriotic cement, and to Denis de Rougemont moral/spiritual renewal. 
	 By war's end, there was a loud call for the unity of Europe as a must to preserve not only its civilization, but its world leadership role. Intellectuals contributed a concrete vision as well. In his seminal essay The Idea of Europe, Rougemont presented a strong rationale for a united, federal Europe which would allow "unity in diversity." Jos‚ Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses (1932) advocated an economic base for European unity. Ernst Junger called for a democratic federation of states after the war, organized along the lines of economics, technology, trade, and featuring cultural diversity. Yet the challenges posed by the industrialized, mass societies of the West caused other projects to appear as well. Guided in part by Georges Sorel's R‚flexions sur la violence, Lenin, Mussolini, and Hitler, would realize a distorted, a violent construction of Europe. All these proposals operated within the framework of two failed global international systems: President Wilson's 14th point ruled by the League of Nations, and the Russian Revolution.

Interwar European Projects
	In the interwar period, the construction of Europe continued to enjoy broad support from varied quarters: Protestant and Catholic churches, politicians, businessmen, Christian social movements, trade unionists such as Albert Thomas, private associations, namely that of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, and the League of Nations. The Locarno Conference gave it political life, the Briand-Kellogg Pact advanced it, and the League of Nations provided it with a forum. Borne out of an aversion to war and a concern for Europe's decline in world affairs, these efforts gained the support of important politicians, but were constrained by several factors, namely Britain's reluctance to participate and Bolshevism's de facto opposition to any international movement headed by capitalist countries; in addition, many European governments feared loss of sovereignty. Political developments of the early 1930s further polarized governments: the Young Plan and the evacuation of the Rhineland, which seemed to insure peace, took the momentum out of the European idea; the Great Depression sounded the death knoll of European internationalism; the rise of the Nazi Party, the death of Briand in 1932, and Germany's departure from the League of Nations in 1933, ended the dream period. And yet concrete efforts to realize European unity had progressed significantly in the 1920s and would continue, albeit more slowly, in the 1930s.
	The first measure of a will to unite Europe after 1918 was a pragmatic, incremental approach defined today as a "Europe of several speeds" anchored in Northwest industrial Europe along a Franco-German axis. This regional approach took the form of a project to organize industrial cartels. French businessman turned politician Louis Loucheur introduced the idea of industrial cartels at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, where he sought to create a metallurgical cartel with Belgium and Luxemburg, eventually joined by Britain and Germany. When the reparations system broke down in 1926, Loucheur again promoted the idea of an international steel cartel. An agreement was even signed in September 1926, which German Foreign Minister Streseman called a "landmark of international economic policy, the importance of which cannot be overestimated." While the French saw this measure as the first step toward the formation of an economic League of Nations, however, the British balked at the idea of close economic ties.
	 While working on the cartels idea, Loucheur was busy organizing an International Economic Conference within the framework of the League of Nations, which took place in 1927. Loucheur furthered the regionalist idea and incorporated the notion of a tariffs union, much in the spirit of the League of Nations' and Albert Thomas's work.  Interestingly, the countries which most supported the idea of an economic union in the name of European solidarity were the East Central European countries, which at the Conference promoted the integration of the agricultural sector, an area in which they were suffering from overproduction. The 1927 International Economic Conference echoed the Hooverian principle of promoting free trade in order to strengthen peace. It was further developed by private associations. Loucheur, for example, who worked hand in hand with Prime Minister Aristide Briand associated with the Pan-European Union idea of Count Richard N. Coudenhove-Kalergi. The European Customs Union, furthering the views of the French government, sponsored a series of actions in 1929-1930. The European Federation, created in 1926 and made up mostly of national parliamentarians' committees, worked closely with the League of Nations and, although not officially recognized, it had developed in 20 countries by 1930. One important motivation for European countries to act was the perceived threat of American economic power. 
	In the wake of the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928, Briand furthered these efforts in 1929. In June, he met with German Foreign Minister Gustav Streseman to urge the creation of a European economic group with France and Germany at its center, and he took his ideas before the League of Nations in September, calling for a conference after presenting a memorandum on Europe. 27 governments gathered in May 1930 to hear his proposals, in which he advocated the creation of some kind of European federal union with complete free trade and a political structure that would withstand the kind of economic disputes that had caused the downfall of earlier customs unions. Upon close scrutiny, his proposal bears great resemblance with post-1945 proposals. Briand proposed union but not unity, the constitution of a representative body (the European Conference) and an executive body (a permanent political committee), in essence, a federation that would respect states' sovereignty. Briand further recommended to study the practical applications of union to economics, finances, labor, and interparliamentary relations. In advocating political cooperation to enhance and guarantee the work of economic units, Briand showed remarkable insight , going so far as to recommend the work of specific ministers by discipline and to advocate the organization of Europe industrially, first, then agriculturally. Clearly, Briand's version of Europe was inclusive and progressive. One could even talk about "enlargement" as Loucheur in 1930 toured several Eastern European states to garner support for the principle of economic cooperation. In fact, many of the processes adopted by the European Economic Community in the 1950s would mirror his proposals. Briand called such initiatives "regionalizing within the League," like many others at the time who were looking for a compromise between globalization and the rise of regional groups. However, Streseman's death, the crash of the stock market, the return to economic nationalism and the rise of Hitler buried a plan that had gone so far. By 1935, the Night of the Long Knives and the Ethiopian crisis had left Europe without an international system. By 1939 there were two centers of power left: the Nazi model and the Soviet model, and they briefly joined forces.
	The political culture   including unionism, state invervention, nationalization, social structures and economic systems, even the principle of national sovereignty   was too diverse, failing to produce a unity of purpose anchored in common values that would be the basis of unification. Self-restraint, which was a commonly accepted attitude, was not enough to support the realization of Europe in the 1930s. It would be only after world war II that the threat, both external and internal, to the West's cultural and spiritual heritage, prompted new fathers of Europe to rise again and add their names to a long and distinguished list.

Wartime Projects
	The war was a catalyst for change. The chaos unleashed on Europe in 1939 made many revisit fundamental attitudes and sped up the self-criticism that many addressed to their societies and political regimes. The traumas and devastations of the war, namely the massive movement of refugees across frontiers, the common need for aid, and the countries' devastation, created the momentum for radical change and dealt a serious blow to the nation-state principle. Also, the experience of supranational institutions through the military and economic unified command was an important factor.  Those wartime models came from a broad political spectrum: Christian Democrats such as Konrad Adenauer, socialists such as Leon Blum, and British conservatives such as Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill, Catholics, Liberals such as Salvador da Madariaga, Parliamentarians. The multiplicity of ideas that circulated in occupied countries during the war about a new Europe, testifies to three important factors: first, that the desire for a new system was widely supported by European societies; secondly, that because of interwar awareness and discussions, the idea of Europe had progressed to the point where wartime resistors were able to translate ideas into concrete projects; thirdly, that the moral dimension of change was an intricate part of those projects. As early as 1940, Altiero Spinelly, while in jail, drafted a manifesto for a "free and united Europe." Meanwhile, other resistors planned a radical reorganization of postwar politics, economics, and society along the lines of European unity. 
	Plans for a postwar Europe were restarted in 1943. The lobbying of Coudenhove-Kalergi in the United States highlighted American ambivalence. His wartime efforts included the creation of a seminar on European issues at New York University in 1942. Following the 5th Pan European Congress in 1943, there was great interest in the American press, which was followed by Coudenhove-Kalergi's draft of a Constitution of the United States of Europe and the "Crusade for Pan-Europe." However, American fears of antagonizing the Soviet Union which was already demanding a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, the German problem, and FDR's opposition thwarted these efforts. Any federation scheme such as the British attempt to create a Western European bloc were viewed as selfish cover toward a military alliance. In Europe, Winston Churchill was very active during the war by supporting the concept of "Pan Europe" in his March 21, 1943 address, and advocated the creation of a Council of Europe. Another individual who was very active yet promoted an incremental approach was Monnet who conceived  an Anglo-French core for a European body that would be completely independent of the two superpowers a path that he had pursued to some extent during World War I, when he was coordinating the Anglo-French supply effort. In 1940 and again in 1941, Monnet proposed to the British a plan for an "indissoluble union" between France and Britain, which would involve common citizenship, joint government, and a single war strategy. This would serve as the basis for a future European union. Monnet tried again in 1941 only to be rebuffed.  Monnet then encouraged the U.S. to consider an economic base for European unity in the summer of 1943, when France renewed its Lend-Lease Agreement, while affirming, with the French Committee of National Liberation, that there would be no peace in Europe if the nation-states were allowed to reform. A federation, creating a single economic entity, was the solution. This would match the European resistance efforts, which climaxed at a meeting of European resistance representatives in June and July 1944, and called for a federal union in their Draft Declaration of the European Resistance.
	
Postwar Europe: The Real Start
	In 1945, the situation was familiar, and yet new elements would give it a new shape. The prewar options of functionalism and federalism were still very much at the heart of the debate. The countries that were most interested in European integration, once again, were the ones that had the most to gain, their economies unstable, their bureaucracies "disembowled" Likewise, the supporters of Europe came very much from the same stations as before the war: Christian Democratic political parties inspired by Roman Catholicism (Schuman, Adenauer, de Gasperi), men from the "heart of Europe" such as Spaak, and Van Zeeland, liberals and socialists (Ignazio Silone, the Labour Party). Among them were men who came from smaller countries (Germany, France, Italy, Benelux) and thus favored a pooling of sovereignty to address urgent economic needs and industrial requirements; in addition, de Gasperi, Schuman, and Adenauer all were "frontiersmen" who knew the consequences of rigid yet vulnerable frontiers: de Gasperi had sat in an Austrian parliament, Schuman had been reared in German Alsace, and Adenauer saw firsthand the effects of French occupation in his Rhineland province after World War I. To these must be added two key individuals whose experience bridged both world wars and who, because of their unique stature, would play key roles. First, Winston Churchill, whose role in wartime and postwar politics would place him in a unique position, then Jean Monnet who believed that momentum, not theory, was most important. 
	Postwar issues mirrored the 1919 issues as well: the Franco-German problem was still a major consideration in any arrangement, and so was the ambivalent position of Britain. The Europeans' fear of American economic power, and the ambivalent U.S. position toward Europe, moderately encouraging its economic unity, were also present. The decisive difference came from the clash rather than the demise of the two superpowers' world systems and the onset of the Cold War, which created a new momentum. Initially, U.S. policy towards Europe in the aftermath of World War II was not dissimilar to the aftermath of World War I. The U.S. dismantled Interallied economic cooperation controls, worked with the newly created United Nations, affirmed its primacy of a global systems by creating institutions such as the IMF and GATT, and issued bilateral loans. Regionalization within the United Nations was a distinct possibility. W. W. Rostow, Assistant Chief of the German-Austrian Economic Division at the State Department, argued in favor of a Council of Europe within the United Nations that would include all European countries, including the Soviet Union. This proposal was approved by the UN General Assembly in December 1946 and an Economic Commission for Europe was created. John Foster Dulles pursued the idea of a united Europe. Following his January 17, 1947 speech, Congress approved a United States of Europe resolution, which would remain an important factor in U.S. policy toward Europe for the next three years. Coudenhove-Kalergi's lobbying efforts paid off as he enlisted the support of several U.S. Senators. At the same time, integrationist models were being considered by the American administration to deal with issues of German development and Soviet obstructionism. William Clayton, for example, felt that a Benelux customs union followed by a European customs union was most important. President Truman himself favored a European economic union.
	European efforts resumed as well, at first also fixed upon the past. Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1946 polled European parliaments about the American project, and in September 1946, Winston Churchill himself called for a "United States of Europe," while advocating a more limited and cautious form of integration along the lines of a confederation. In January 1947 he founded the United Europe movement in the United Kingdom and chaired it. Other groups were formed, notably the Belgian Nouvelles Equipes Internationales and the Economic League for European Cooperation. The Federalists created the Union Europ‚enne des F‚d‚ralistes at their Montreux meeting in June 1947. Differences between Unionists, who wanted a consultative assembly deferring to a committee of government ministers, and Federalists, who wanted a constituent assembly to draft a constitution for the United States of Europe, were cleverly underplayed by Churchill in order to bring all sides to the Congress of Europe at The Hague in May 1948. The Congress, which brought together 800 delegates from 16 countries and launched the European Movement, created the Council of Europe, issued the European Convention of Human Rights, and eventually created the Court of Human Rights, which even today remains a vital organism for the protection and promotion of civil liberties. The Council of Europe, though, was a solution reminiscent of the League of Nations' institutions; it was a forum, not a governing body. By providing a training ground for European politicians of the post-resistance generation, the Court of Human Rights gave the philosophical underpinnings of the new Europe   without which it might have remained technocratic. The Council's main issue at its first meeting in the summer of 1949 was that of Germany's admission, with Adenauer playing a crucial role in reintegrating Germany into the mainstream of European civilization and culture.
	A pragmatist, functionalist view of European integration, however, was being shaped by the Franco-German security problem and the issue of German reconstruction   as they developed within the context of the Marshall Plan.  The Marshall Plan was another avenue for the unification of Europe   it too was modeled after the lessons of World War I. Experts disagree as to the role that it played. Some stress the fact that it sped agricultural integration, while others debate whether it was truly designed to foster economic integration.  Perhaps this has to do with the tensions in which it was conceived and the influence exerted upon it by Jean Monnet, who tweaked it to foster European economic cooperation. Almost simultaneously with the Marshall Plan, European defense was affirmed by the Treaty of Brussels which created the Western European Union in February 1948. Soon the Paris Accords brought Germany into the Western European Union and terminated the occupation of the Federal Republic.
	The actions of Jean Monnet deserve special consideration, for he illustrates the union of functionalism and federalism that characterized the birth of the European Economic Community. His pragmatism, as well as a keen understanding of the rapidly changing situation, enabled him to "think outside the box" and to work at several levels simultaneously. Thus being the pragmatic outsider, he was able to come up with a solution when things seemed to grind to a halt. Soon after WWII, Monnet returned to the idea of a Franco-German axis for Europe, and he supported the creation of the International Ruhr Authority, which was born in 1949 following two years discussions.  This was in part because of his  contacts with Konrad Adenauer, and in part because of Britain's other obligations and "turn inwards" in the wake of India's independence.  Monnet was absent from the Churchillian European triumph in 1948, and he did not participate in talks about a customs union which was promoted by some of his French and Italian colleagues who were following up on an American proposal. And he soon turned away from both the Marshall Plan and the International Ruhr Authority, declining the chairmanships that had been offered to him. Sensing that the OEEC was too diverse to work toward integration, and witnessing the return to prewar politics, Monnet embarked on yet another path. He turned to the cartel idea again and in 1948-49 started working to create a European federal authority in coal and steel around a Franco-German core. This was the technocratic approach to European  re-construction   the tried and successful formula of Louis Loucheur.
	In April 1950, Monnet presented his proposal of the European Coal and Steel Community to Robert Schuman. This proposal, like the proposal for a European Defense Community in October 1950, were direct reactions to Cold War developments that forced a resolution of the German question, and a direct concern for protecting European identity against the mandates of American foreign interests, namely  German reconstruction and rearmament. Having failed to enlist the British, Monnet proceeded to found a European union on a Franco-German base. In other terms, although he had not attended the Congress of The Hague, its spirit was not lost on Monnet. His functionalist plan had enough momentum to generate further integration.
	In 1951, President Eisenhower said that NATO could not function without a federation of Europe. Responding to this challenge, Paul-Henri Spaak in November 1951 resigned as President of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe and with federalists set up an Action Committee for a European Constituent Assembly. When the ECSC's assembly convened its first meeting in September 1952, it became an organ of the EDC as well and was charged with drafting a European Constitution. Thus once again, federalist and functionalist elements worked hand in hand, and they would do so again repeatedly, leading to an increasing centralization of power and to increasing supranational authority. And yet the European project would be doubted and even pronounced dead a few times even in the 1970s, yet kept progressing until 1992 and beyond.

Conclusion
	Thus it appears that there were three main forces behind the integration of Europe: the regional plans of intellectual-politicians of the older generation, the new world order dimposed by the United States, and Jean Monnet's pragmatic views. Several projects were tried after the war,  advocating seemingly irreconcilable positions. In the end, functionalism informed by federalism prevailed. Monnet and the Americans worked together to create the technological unity of Europe, while the intellectual-politicians built Europe's ideological-moral side. True Europeanists saw the need for both. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, for example,  was convinced of the need for economic cooperation to give vitality to the new Europe, to bury the narrow concept of the nation-state and return to the sources of European civilization, namely Christianity, freedom, and a common culture.  Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, Harold MacMillan, Francois Mitterrand, Paul-Henry Spaak, and Altiero Spinelli, who participated in the First European Congress, also called for the political, economic and monetary union of Europe. In the early 1950s, just as in 1947-48, the interaction between functionalism and federalism became increasingly visible in the successive phases of European construction.

	Endnotes