(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:18)(cid:11)(cid:16)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:21)(cid:8)(cid:16)(cid:6)(cid:22)(cid:3)(cid:7)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:12)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:13)(cid:9) (cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:9)(cid:9) (cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:27)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:15)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:29)(cid:4)(cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:30)(cid:2)(cid:11)(cid:2)(cid:31)(cid:9) !!"(cid:9) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:2)(cid:1) HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium 2007 “EUROPEAN VOICES: ACTORS AND WITNESSES OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION” Third HEIRS Colloquium Department of International History and Politics, GIIS, Geneva March 16-17, 2007 Notes on the Contributors 3 Introduction - Taking a Closer Look at Non-State Actors: Challenges Ahead 5 Sophie Huber & Katrin Milzow The Italian Jesuit Journal La Civiltà Cattolica and the Transformation of Europe from post-WWII Reconstruction to the Creation of the Council of Europe (1945- 1949) 10 Paolo Orlando Ferrara Trade Unions’ First European Network under the ECSC: Decartelisation Policy and Trade Unions’ Response from a German Perspective 1950-1955 23 Hitoshi Suzuki The Empty Chair Crisis 1965: European Crisis Management by State and Non- State Actors 37 Philip Robert Bajon The Role of the European Commission in the First Enlargement Process. The Agriculture Negotiations Between 1961-63 and 1970-72 47 Mariëlla Smids Promoting a Knowledge of Europe: The Youth and European Integration 62 Alexander Reinfeldt Towards a “Dialogued Integration”? The Overlapping Nature of Actors and Witnesses in the Eastward Enlargement Process 72 Cristina Blanco Sío-López La société civile a-t-elle pris le pouvoir symbolique dans l’UE? L’exemple du débat sur les frontières de l’Union 87 Axel Marion Habermas' dream or Habermas' nightmare? A transnational, participatory European public sphere at the Maastricht European Council 1991? 91 Jan-Henrik Meyer Programme of HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium, held at the GIIS, Geneva, March 16-17, 2007 107 2 HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium 2007 Notes on the Contributors Philip Bajon is doctoral student at the Universities Paris-IV- Sorbonne and Duisburg-Essen (Germany). He is currently writing his PhD thesis about the Constitutional Crisis of the European Communities 1965/1966 (Empty Chair, Luxembourg Crisis). Contact: philip.bajon[at]gmx.net Cristina Blanco Sío-López is a PhD researcher and Research Assistant at the Department of History and Civilization of the European University Institute of Florence (EUI). She is also Research Assistant and Academic Collaborator at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS). She worked for the European Commission in Brussels and for the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. She taught European Studies at the Universities of Georgetown and Salamanca. Her research interests are temporal dimensions, myth-making processes and changing discourses of European integration from the 1990s onwards, with a focus on EU enlargement as identity challenger and on the conceptual emissions of the enlargement communication strategy. Contact: cristina.blanco.sio-lopez[at]eui.eu Paolo Orlando Ferrara is a PhD candidate at the School of International Studies at the University of Trento. His research interests lie with catholic intellectuals and the ideas of Europe in the 20th century. He is currently a visiting researcher at the University of Lyon, France. Contact: paolo.ferrara[at]studenti.unitn.it Sophie Huber is a PhD candidate in the International History and Politics Department of the Graduate Institute of International Studies (HEI) in Geneva. Her research focuses on European identity discourses in the 1960s and early 1970s. After being a teaching assistant at the GIIS, she spent a year researching archives in Brussels and at the European University Institute in Florence. Ms Huber is now a training officer at the think-tank CASIN in Geneva, teaching diplomats about European Union external relations and policies. Contact: huberso0[at]hei.unige.ch Axel Marion est doctorant et assistant d'enseignement à HEI. Il développe actuellement sa thèse autour du débat sur les frontières de l'Europe depuis 1989. Les points centraux de sa recherche touchent aux relations entre espace géographique et espace politique, à la notion d'identité européenne, ainsi qu'au rôle des acteurs et de la politique intérieure des Etats dans ce débat. Contact: axel_marion[at]bluemail.ch Jan-Henrik Meyer, MA, PhD candidate in modern history at the Berlin Graduate School of Social Sciences. He studied history, sociology and political science at Humboldt-University Berlin, at the London School of Economics (European Studies), and at Duke University (USA). After studying Chinese in Taiwan and a "stage" with the Secretariat General of the European Commission (Relations with the Council), he was a visiting student at the European University Institute in Florence, and a research fellow at the Institute of European History in Mainz, Germany. His PhD project "Tracing the European Public Sphere" - funded by the German Science Foundation (DFG) - compares French, German and British newspaper coverage on European Council Summits (1969-1991). Recent publications focus on the aspect of transnational communication within the European public sphere, and on the dynamics of the 3 HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium 2007 development of a European public sphere of the media. A list of publications can be found here: http://www.jhmeyer.gmxhome.de/texte/meyer_publications.pdf Contact: jhmeyer[at]gmx.de Katrin Milzow is a Ph.D. student at the Graduate Institute for International Studies in Geneva. She is completing a thesis entitled “’National Interests’ and European Integration, Discourse and Politics (1997-2004)”. Her work focuses on the role political discourse plays in the interaction between the European Union and its member states, emphasising the discursive aspects, as well as the domestic and global contexts of the interaction between the ‘national’ and the ‘European’. Contact: milzow2[at]hei.unige.ch Alexander Reinfeldt, M.A., is a scientific collaborator at the history department (Historisches Seminar) at the University of Hamburg (Germany). He is completing his PhD thesis on the information policies of supranational, governmental and non-governmental political actors on the issue of European integration in Britain from the 1950s to the 1970s. His further research interests focus inter alia on the role of individual and collective actors and of public opinion in the process of European integration. Contact: alexander.reinfeldt[at]uni-hamburg.de Mariëlla Smids is a PhD candidate in the International Relations Department at the University of Groningen. Her research focuses on the influence of the Commission in the European enlargement process, comparing the accessions in 1973, 1995 and 2004. She worked in the European Parliament and participated in the research project Histoire interne de la Commission européenne 1958-1973 of a consortium of European universities. Contact: m.g.smids[at]rug.nl Hitoshi Suzuki is a PhD candidate at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, and currently funded by the DAAD for research at the Duisburg-Essen University in Germany. His thesis focuses on the role of trade unions in the Schuman Plan negotiations and in the decision- making process of the ECSC under Jean Monnet’s presidency. Contact: suzukin[at]zb3.so-net.ne.jp 4 HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium 2007 Introduction - Taking a closer look at Non-state actors: Challenges Ahead Sophie Huber & Katrin Milzow The following papers are the result of a graduate conference held at Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva in March 2007. The conference was an initiative of the History of European Integration Research Society (HEIRS), an informal network of young researchers (Ph.D. and Post-doc) created in the fall of 2004. It was the network’s third annual conference, hosted by the Department of International History and Politics of the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. Participants came from universities in eight European countries (Belgium, France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the USA and Switzerland). The conference also welcomed Profs. Anne Deighton and Antonio Varsori, both members of the European Liaison Committee of Historians, as well as Prof. Francis Cheneval from the University of Zurich and Prof. Pierre du Bois† from the Graduate Institute. Dr. Gilles Grin from the Jean Monnet Foundation for Europe also joined the colloquium. To all participants, we are very grateful for their keen interest and insightful contributions. We are very sad that Prof. Pierre du Bois, who died very suddenly during the summer, will not be able to witness the completion of this project. We are deeply grateful for the enthusiastic support he gave us at the time. We would also like express our gratitude to Professor Andre Liebich, who from the very inception of our project supported the conference and this publication. Without his enlightening advice and his steady support in administrative procedures this endeavour would not have been possible. We also extend our thanks to Professors Bruno Arcidiacono and Gopalan Balachandran, Heads of the Department of International History and Politics, as well as to Professor Philippe Burrin, Director of the Graduate Institute of International Studies. The conference was organised with the kind support of the Graduate Institute of International Studies, the Europaeum, the Académie suisse des sciences humaines et sociales (ASSH) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (FNSRS). We are very grateful to all these institutions. * * * This collection of papers aims to shed further light on the role of non-state actors within the European integration process. Current historiography on the process that led to the creation of the three European Communities widely acknowledges the role played by states, as well as by some of their major political leaders, diplomats, and civil servants (among them Monnet, Schuman, de Gasperi, Adenauer, and Bevin). Less attention has, however, been given to non- state actors, to their visions of Europe, their stakes in the integration process, and the means at their disposal to voice their opinions and influence the process of European unification. Taking a closer look at these non-state actors entails both opportunities and challenges, historiographical as well as methodological. Historians’ training has tended to push them to focus their search for primary sources on documents found in national archives as the most reliable and relevant basis for their work. This might explain why the historiography of European integration takes its roots only in the late 1970s with the opening of the US archives, followed in the early 1980s with the opening of European archives, with works such as Pierre Gerbet’s textbook La construction de l’Europe 5 HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium 2007 first published in 1983.1 The first generations of researchers focused on the very early years of European integration, more specifically on the role of the nation states, where the archives originated2. Even first attempts at studying European institutions, such as the work conducted by members of the European Liaison Committee of Historians from 19823, focused primarily on the strategies and policies of nation states within those institutions. This pioneer work enabled researchers to fine-tune their understanding of the role of nation states in the overall process of European integration. The concentration on archival sources has led many historians to follow the calendar of the opening of collections. On the one hand, this has led to a constant renewal of research topics as new archival material was made available. But on the other hand it led scholars to explore only a narrow time-span of the EU’s history, in order to consider always new materials4 unveiling states’ perspectives on European integration. Only in the 1990s did historians of European integration begin to reflect on their own work. In search of new avenues of analysis5, they began to consider a wider time-span and a broader range of actors. Historical accounts of European institutions began with Raymond Poidevin’s history of the High Authority, published in 19936. It is, however, interesting to note that the Liaison Committee’s major project on the history of the European Commission was launched only in the early 2000s7. Also as of the mid-1990s, a greater openness to disciplines other than history encouraged scholars to focus on issues and policies which implied a closer look at their broader domestic, European and international contexts. A closer look at specific European policies, such as agricultural or social policy, can’t but take into account the role of non-state actors8. In this context, diplomatic, and even economic history, was no longer sufficient to shed light on developments of European politics. A newer generation of historians of European integration feels less compelled to tackle new events and time periods and is increasingly willing to shift their focus away from nation states. Researchers once more look back at the earlier stages of European integration now focussing on actors such as trade unions and employer associations, lobbies, foreign investors, NGOs, pro-European movements, political parties, European civil servants and public opinion. In this respect, the volumes edited from the early 2000s by Elisabeth du Réau and Robert Frank, by Gérard Bossuat, or by Antonio Varsori offer an overview of current research9. 1 Gerbet, Pierre 1983, La construction de l’Europe, Paris, Imprimerie nationale. 2 Varsori, Antonio 2001, “La storiografia sull’ integratione europea” Europa-Europe, Vol.10, No 1, pp. 69-93 3 See http://www.restena.lu/lcd/cere/uk/groupe/glinfouk.html 4 The Liaison Committee itself acknowledges this tendency. See Deighton, Anne & Alan Milward 1999, “Introduction” in Deighton, Anne & Alan Milward (eds) 1999, Widening, Deepening and Accelaration: The European Economic Community 1957-1963, Brussels, Bruylant, p. 11 5 This tendency to strive for new approaches to the study European integration is clearly perceptible in the works by Bossuat, Gérard 2003, «Avant-propos » in Bossuat, Gérard (dir.) 2003, Inventer l’Europe, Histoire nouvelle des groupes d’influence et des acteurs de l’unité européenne, Brussels, P.IE. Peter Lang, p. 17 ; Deighton, Anne, op. cit., p. 11 ; Varsori, Antonio 2006, “Introduction”, in Varsori, Antonio (ed.) 2006, Inside the European Community. Actors and Policies in the European Integration 1957 – 1972, Brussels, Bruylant, p. 10 6 Poidevin, Raymond & Dirk Spierenburg 1993, Histoire de la Haute autorité de la Communauté européeene du charbon et de l’acier: une experience supranationale, Brussels, Bruylant; see also Loth, Wilfried & William Wallace & Wolfgang Wessels, Walter Hallstein. Der vergessene Europäer?, Bonn, Europa Union Verlag, 2006 7 site web 8 Varsori, Antonio 2004, “Introduction”, in Varsori, Antonio (ed.) 2004, Towards a history of vocational eduction and training (VET) in Europe in a comparative perspective, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, p. 8 9 Du Réau, Elisabeth & Frank Robert (dir.), Dynamiques européennes, Nouvel espace, Nouveaux acteurs 1969-1981, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne; Bossuat, Gérard (dir.), op. cit., Varsori, Antonio (ed.) 2006, Inside the European Community, op. cit. 6 HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium 2007 The present collection of papers aspires to build on this work, while also hoping to foster the dialogue between historians and scholars from other disciplines in the area of social science, especially political science, political sociology and law. The papers illustrate how focusing on non-state actors opens interesting lines of analysis to complement more traditional approaches to the history of European integration. For one, a consideration of non-state actors reopens the debate on what are to be considered appropriate primary sources on which to base a historical argument. The use of private sources, such as the collections of trade unions, pro-European movements or even individuals - many which are available at the European University Institute in Florence - allow researchers to consider a variety of documents such as unpublished memoirs, personal notes and annotations, collections of selected newspaper extracts, private correspondence, minutes of meetings and personal notes on the basis of which the former were prepared, lists of members and participants, or even financial statements. Other materials, such as public opinion polls, press reviews, speeches and interviews, statistics, and European institutions’ official documents (Commission papers, Council conclusions, Parliament reports and resolutions) complement archival sources. They also enable analyses to explore time spans extending beyond the time periods opened up by the thirty year rule. It is interesting to note that in the early stages of European integration actors and witnesses of integration frequently overlapped. This raises the question of how to consider the work of contemporary historians, as secondary literature or as primary sources bearing witness to the spirit of the time10. Besides, focussing on non-state actors allows for multiple perspectives on a single event, leading to more nuanced and less linear accounts of European integration. Early historians’ focus on national and institutional sources may have contributed to teleological biases in their work. When enlarging the pool of actors considered, voices opposing the European process cannot be ignored. Critical points of view add to the depth of narratives of European integration, revealing the complexity of the process and the political and ideological battles it entailed. Such ‘thick’ descriptions underline the contingency characterising the European process at each step of its development. The consideration of non-state actors also points to the grey area dividing institutional approaches to European integration from intellectual history approaches. The question whether one should write a history of the European Union as a political and institutional process, or a history of the ideas informing the European integration process, can be partly overcome by focussing on non-state actors. Indeed, exploring the contributions of non-state actors at various steps of the European integration process may unveil ideological debates behind policy progresses and setbacks. As a result, the analysis will include the study of ideas that may not have resulted in any specific institutional progress. Besides bridging the gap between the history of the idea of Europe and the institutional history of the process of European integration, the consideration of non-state actors again underlines the contingency of the development of European integration. Lastly, the study of trade-unions, political parties, interest groups, or intellectuals among others, encourages the importation of conceptual tools such as identities, socialisation, networks or the public sphere from other disciplines, so that it allows for enriching cross-fertilisations11. Building on other disciplines often improves the researcher’s grasp of complex legal, social and economic issues informing historical events. Social sciences also may enable the researchers to consider a greater body of material and to cover wider time spans. Encouraging historians to 10 Deighton, Anne, “Europe at Fifty”, Keynote Speech, HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium, Geneva, March 2007 11 The very interest in non-state actors may also have arisen from pioneering research conducted in other disciplines, especially law and the social sciences. 7 HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium 2007 bridge the gap between snapshot studies and the wider context12, this provides one example of the ways in which interdisplinarity may enrich historical analysis. If the inclusion of non-state actors into the analysis of the history of European integration implies a number of important advantages, each of these also entails difficulties and pitfalls. To start with, returning to sources, one may wonder whether documents coming from non- state actors can be considered as appropriate, relevant, and reliable as the records compiled by national or European institutions. In particular, one should be aware that private collections may be incomplete due to a lack of archival experience within those private actors. Thus the researcher may be left wondering whether a document he has found is representative or what place it might have occupied in an original collection. Such drawbacks can be overcome by also looking into official records. The question of the reliability of primary sources is all the more acute for materials younger than thirty years, where official sources, against which to cross-reference a piece of information, are scarce. As a result studies of more recent events tend to adopt alternative research designs, which may be inspired by interdisciplinary approaches. Concerns about the cross-referencing of various collections produced by non-state actors often lead to logistical difficulties related to multi-archival research. In particular, the multiplication of application procedures, mobility, financial resources, language proficiency, and time constraints are an issue. The study of non-state actors, however, often implies such multi-archival research; all the more so as domestic non-state actors have a tendency to compare themselves to their European counterparts and/or to create federations or other common entities at the European level. The frequently interdisciplinary nature of the study of non-state actors furthermore raises problems of theoretical and methodological soundness. The combination of historical approaches and other disciplines, in particular political science, has triggered controversial debates within the community of historians of the European integration process. Many critiques of interdisciplinary approaches point out, that historians who draw on other disciplines in which they are not primarily schooled are more prone to methodological mistakes. Here, teams composed of scientists of different backgrounds and experiences may help move the historical discipline forward. * * * The following papers illustrate the ways in which the twin themes of non-state actors and interdisciplinarity combine to fruitfully inform the study of European integration. The paper by Paolo Orlando Ferrara traces ideas elaborated and launched by non-state actors which surround more specific institutional and legal controversies. In particular, Ferrara considers the Vatican Jesuit Journal La Civiltà Cattolica’s contribution to the immediate post- war debate on European integration. A further series of papers by Hitoshi Suzuki, Philip Robert Bajon and Mariëlla Smids consider the more active participation of non-state actors at various stages of European construction. Suzuki looks into the strategies followed by labour unions to secure participation in the institutions of the European Coal and Steel Community. Bajon sheds additional light on the Empty Chair Crisis by emphasising the role of agricultural interest groups and civil servants at the national and European level, as well as wider domestic pressures generated by electoral constrains and media attention. Smids analyses the evolving role played by the European Commission in the first rounds of enlargement negotiations conducted between 1961 and 1972. 12 Deighton, Anne, “Europe at Fifty”, Keynote Speech, HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium, Geneva, March 2007 8 HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium 2007 The last four papers focus on the increased acknowledgement of the role played by non- actors, more specifically voices emerging from the general public. Alexander Rheinfeldt illustrates how the Commission very early on recognized the significant part youth might play in promoting and legitimising the process of integration and in securing its continuation. Cristina Blanco Sío-López presents an at times conflicting dialogue between the general public and the Commission, which can’t but take into account criticism expressed regarding the pace and shape of the EU’s eastern enlargement. Axel Marion wonders whether the public, led by intellectual elites, has begun to match or even supersede the role played by national and European official actors in gearing the process of European integration. Jan-Henrik Meyer builds on Habermas’ concept of a European public sphere and the shape it would have to take to best support the European process. Through an analysis of key European newspapers’ coverage of the 1991 Maastricht summit, he wonders whether such a European public sphere may indeed be developing. Sophie A. Huber Graduate Institute of International Studies, HEI Geneva huberso0[at]hei.unige.ch Katrin Milzow Graduate Institute of International Studies, HEI Geneva milzow2[at]hei.unige.ch 9 HEIRS 3rd Annual Colloquium 2007 The Italian Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica and the transformation of Europe from post-WWII reconstruction to the creation of the Council of Europe (1945- 1949) Paolo Orlando Ferrara Introduction The new international context that took place after World War II signaled a turning point in the evolution of international relations as it interrupted the millenary prevalence of European powers over the globe and shifted the axis of balance towards the USA and the USSR. Even those European states that had played a part in the war on the side of the Allied forces lost their appealing status as economic and political world leaders and suffered the consequences of the upcoming general mentality that was pushing for the acquisition of autonomy and the increase of liberties for their former colonies; therefore, France and the UK started a new phase of their history in which their capacity to influence world policy was not as relevant as it had been previously. At the same time, Italy tried –although unsuccessfully– to be invited to the roundtable of the influential countries so as to recover from what the winners perceived as a too quick “stop-and-go” in its foreign policy when it suddenly moved from the Nazi-led Axis to the liberal-communist military Alliance. Nonetheless, the main concern of the Italian people did not center on pretending to remain the heir of that political giant that it happened to be a few centuries earlier, in line with the national rhetoric of the inter-war period. In modern times, the country had to provide, inevitably with the help of foreign powers, for its economic reconstruction and for the political stabilization and appeasement of a people who were manifestly divided due to strong ideological contrapositions. In addition, the stereotypical divide between North and South, or even the split of the country into three, which has become an object of common wisdom after Bagnasco’s studies of the highly heterogeneous parts of the territory,1 dramatically undermined the rhetorical idea of a fully completed process of national unification. Material as well as cultural reasons for fragmentation contributed thus to separate regions and social classes. In this context, a part of the country raised its voice to speak against the environment that was generated by the ashes of Fascism and the end of the war. Catholics indeed expressed their outspoken disapproval of any form of social desegregation that could be imputed to either geographical or class divides, cleavages that were mainly exalted by left-wing interpretations,2 in line with that ontology of the State and society that the theories of natural law celebrated. Therefore, because they were politically committed to halting all ideologies that denied validity to an inter-class social doctrine both domestically and internationally, Catholics also fought an intellectual battle to affirm that particular Weltanschauung that overcame the principle of the inevitable clash between separate social groups and countries depending on a conception of life defined as a Darwinian permanent struggle –ultimately classifiable as an exclusive interpretation of social relations, or the affirmation of a logic of exclusion– and affirmed an inclusive system of human interactions. * I would like to thank Ms Diana De Vito for her kind support in proofreading this paper. 1 Bagnasco A., 1977, Le tre Italie, Il Mulino, Bologna, pp. 50-66. The author has underlined how post- WWII represented the turning point in the history of the country in relation to the multi-level development analysis. 2 Left-wing interpretations of the post-WWII Italian history are generally centered on the idea of the conflict between capitalistic and socialist models of production and social relations and the triumph of the former over the latter. As an example, see Luperini R., 1971, Gli intellettuali di sinistra e l’ideologia della ricostruzione nel dopoguerra, Edizioni di Ideologie, Roma, pp. 9-13. 10