I Aristide Briand and the Initiative of the French Government for a European Union, Prior to World War II

His lack of dogmatic knowledge and his natural inclinations were probably responsible for his never maintaining a dogmatic position.1 i See Emil Ludwig, Leaders of Europe, London, 1934, p. 116. 142 ARISTIDE BRIAND AND THE EUROPEAN UNION 143 The two highlights of his diplomacy were the Treaty of Locarno and the Kellogg Pact by which Briand changed the nature of international relations in postwar Europe. When he became Premier in 1925, he adopted a German plan of guaranteeing mutual security against attack, not only for France but also for Germany, and put it through at Locarno. It was a treaty of non-aggression, of conciliation, arbitration, and mutual guarantees.2 The Kellogg Pact, which had been an American proposal of a bilateral pact between America and France, was broadened by Briand to contain elements of elastic expansion, so that it might include other nations and secure an abiding peace.

E. Herriot Advanced First Plan of Unification. Aristide Briand was not the first French statesman to propose the unification of European nations. Premier Edouard Herriot had recommended the creation of a United States of Europe in a speech in the Chamber of Deputies on January 25, 1925. But his suggestion had found no response in other European governments—except indifference and sometimes downright hostility. Weeks after Herriot's proposal his government fell before further steps could be taken to assemble an international conference for the study of the unification problem. Briand Appeals for Cooperation. It was four years later that Aristide Briand, who was then Minister of Foreign Affairs, decided to take up the suggestion of Herriot and present to the League of Nations a plan of a United States of Europe. In a ministerial declaration Briand appealed to the nations of Europe to unite in a common effort for conciliation, peace, and security. "Europe can never live in peace," the declaration read, "until certain questions are settled and the nations have found the road of cooperation." 3 Briand's appeal immediately created a world-wide sensation. The public opinion of the world was in almost unanimous approval.

The few dissenting voices of the extreme nationalists and communists were not taken seriously. Even Mussolini, the Italian dictator, declared himself in favor of the plan, provided a United Europe would also assume the common administration of the European colonies in Africa. Only in Great Britain were skeptical and dissenting views heard. Prime Minister MacDonald, for example, expressed 2 It seems noteworthy to mention that in signing this treaty of conciliation Germany tacitly acknowledged the loss of Alsace-Lorraine to France. However, Germany refused to accept the loss of eastern German territory to Poland. The Treaty of Locarno implied this refusal and enabled Germany to direct her attention to the East. Fourteen years later German troops crossed the Polish borders. World War II had begun. 3 Quoted by Edouard Bonnefous, L'Europe face a son destin, Paris, 1951, p. 62.

144 STEPS TOWARD UNION his doubt regarding the immediate realizability of the plan, which he considered premature. Briand Addresses League of Nations. In June 1929, Briand personally contacted several ministers of foreign affairs who expressed themselves in favor of his plan. Weeks later, on September 7, 1929, at the opening of the Tenth Assembly of the League of Nations, Briand posed the problem of European Union. In his famous plea for Union and collaboration he declared: "I think that among nations geographically located like the European nations there should exist a kind of Federal Union. Nations, at all times, need the possibility to get in touch with one another, to discuss their interests, to make resolutions, and to establish among them a tie of solidarity which would allow them to face serious situations as soon as they appear. It is this tie which I endeavor to establish." 4 The German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stresemann, immediately agreed to Briand's suggestion and emphasized the necessity of unification because of its economic aspect. Other ministers of foreign affairs also expressed their approval. The only objecting voice at the assembly was that of the British delegate, Henderson, who maintained that a mere restoration of the freedom of foreign trade and the mutual agreement not to increase existing national tariffs would signify a great achievement. After long and enthusiastic discussions the League of Nations delegates assigned to Briand the task to draw up a memorandum outlining a European union. The memorandum was to be approved by the Assembly and then submitted to the national governments for ratification. It was to constitute the basic step towards European Union.

Briand Advances Plan of Unification. On May 1, 1930, Aristide Briand published his memorandum. It provided for the creation of a "European Union" which was to constitute a regional union within the League of Nations. The memorandum was explicit and precise on the organization of the Union government. The legislature, which Briand called the "European Assembly," was to consist of delegates from member governments; the executive branch, which he called the "Permanent Political Committee," was to be elected by the European Assembly. The Committee was to organize a "Secretariat" as the administrative organ of the Union with its seat in Geneva. Finally, a "European Court of Arbitration," the judges of which were to be appointed by the European Assembly, was to constitute the judicial branch of the Union government. All European governments were invited to participate. The mem4E. Bonnefous, Ibid., p. 63.

ARISTIDE BRIAND AND THE EUROPEAN UNION 145 orandum provided that the sovereignty of the member states should not be touched, although the federal government should have certain functions. The economic and social provisions of the memorandum were very vague and fragmentary. They merely foresaw an economic union with "economic collaboration" and a "common market." The important problems with which Europe was occupied during this period were not even mentioned as, for example, the problem of colonies, national minorities, revision of the peace treaties, etc. His proposal was mainly concerned with the development of a system of arbitration, security, and extension of the guarantees given at Locarno. Governments Take Exception. A long and deep silence in the capitals of Europe followed the publication of Briand's memorandum. Then, voices of disappointment were heard. To some governments the document was much too long; to some it was too vague. Although every government approved the principle of unification, every country had reservations with respect to the consequences of such union. Only three governments, those of Bulgaria, the Netherlands, and Yugoslavia, were willing to accept the memorandum without major objections. A mere diplomatic alliance and an economic collaboration now seemed to be most suitable to most governments concerned. The government of Germany declared its fullhearted agreement, provided the Treaty of Versailles was revised and Germany be granted full equality of rights. Belgium objected against the abandonment of sovereignty as outlined in the memorandum. Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland declared the League of Nations to be entirely sufficient under the present situation.

Great Britain expressed her reluctance to abandon the British Commonwealth and its preferential trade. Soviet Russia bitterly opposed the plan because a United Europe would constitute a menace to her own security. Italy, finally, preferred to stay silent altogether. Aristide Briand had drawn up this memorandum and published it in order to be able to present it officially to the national delegates at the following General Assembly of the League of Nations. But when the Eleventh Assembly met on September 1, 1930, Briand, because of all the opposition and criticism which his plan had encountered, merely suggested creating a "Commission for the Study of European Unity." He dared no longer mention a serious discussion of his memorandum or an early realization of its objectives. The delegates finally agreed to a commission that was to examine the fundamental problems and possibilities of unification. It was set up with Sir Eric Drummond of Great Britain (then Secretary Gen146 STEPS TOWARD UNION eral of the League) presiding, and altogether convened six times.

When its discussions proved entirely fruitless, the whole idea of European Union was dropped. Last Appeal for European Unity. A few months later Aristide Briand, the Great French Conciliator, died of a heart ailment. His dream of a United States of Europe and his spirit of conciliation and cooperation appeared once again when in 1931, with the great depression on its way, the French government suggested a European Union for the express purpose of European economic cooperation. But this last appeal for European Union suffered the same fate as did the earlier one by Aristide Briand. CRITICISM Explanations of Failure in Contemporary Literature. To seek the reasons for Briand's failure of attempts at European conciliation and cooperation in a few historical facts would indeed be easy and superficial. We could lay blame, as is done almost without exception by contemporary writers, on the refusal of presentday governments to abandon even the slightest part of their sovereignty—an abandonment which is said to be a prerequisite for a Union; or on the existing division of Europe in victorious countries which endeavored to consolidate Europe as it existed, and defeated Germany which was clamoring for revision of the peace treaty and equality of rights; or on the hostility of Great Britain towards a European Union because she would not abandon the ties with the Commonwealth and integrate with a tariff union of Europe. Or we may become even more superficial by stating that Briand was bound to fail because Stresemann, the German minister of foreign affairs who for several years worked with Briand for European conciliation, had died in October 1929, and that Briand's suggestions came too late. We may even say that, in 1930, the great depression was on its way, or that the Nazis were on their rise in Germany, and Briand's plans were too late for these reasons. But such explanations hardly touch the core of the problem. Briand's project of European conciliation and unification, in reality, was bound to fail because it was built on a basis that suffered from its heterogeneous double nature upon which neither a union nor conciliation can be solidly rested.

The Fundamental Conflict. Briand's greatness lay in his humanitarian or humane approach to the problem of unification. His motivating power was his humanitarian nature and his antichauvinist and anti-militarist outlook. But these noble characteristics conflicted with his collectivist ideology, for humanity and collectivism ARISTIDE BRIAND AND THE EUROPEAN UNION 147 are two heterogeneous worlds of ideas and human action. The humanitarian idea proclaims that man and his happiness are paramount; that he not be neglected in favor of the different aspects of his life, like nation, race, sex, faith, profession, and social groups. The collectivist proclaims and enforces moral imperatives upon the individual in favor of the collectivist whole. In a collectivist society man ceases to be an end, but becomes a means for the ends of state and society. These two worlds of ideas and human action are diametrically opposed. If collectivism attains supremacy, it must overthrow whatever has been built and achieved by humanity; if humanity is to be paramount, whatever collectivism brings about must be removed.

The heterogeneity of these two philosophical principles is reflected in the life work of Aristide Briand. Every step in the direction of his ultimate goal of European peace and collaboration was taken on the humanitarian road for the peace and happiness of the individual; and every step on this road was undone by the collectivist ideologies which animated Briand as well as the politicians and statesmen of his time. The following criticism is solely based on this aforementioned duality. We may content ourselves with a presentation of the fundamental fallacy of Briand's intentions and refer to a detailed analysis of the specific prerequisites and effects of a realization of a Union in our treatment of other writers' plans elsewhere in the book.5 Humanity versus Collectivism. Humanity, i.e., the principle of humane or philanthropic disposition, maintains that the noble side of mankind is the dominant feature of his nature, that goodness, kindness, and love are man's motivations. Man is more important than any of his part-aspects of life—nation, race, sex, faith, profession, and social group. The world law of human collaboration is gentle and peaceful; war is bad and detestable. Peace and man's happiness are the highest objectives. To deliver man from war and strife is a principal goal of humanity.

This concept is rejected by collectivism which maintains that the "immoral" concepts of individual rights and individual supremacy must disappear. Collective society must recognize no private persons—only collective wholes which the individual must serve. The dignity of the individual results from his homogeneity with society as a whole. The individual, in final analysis, is a "pure abstraction" and society a single "collective being." It is obvious that this conception of individual and society, which 5 See Part II, Chapters I-V.

148 STEPS TOWARD UNION is clearly stated by August Comte, the founder of Positivism,6 necessarily must lead to a totalitarian view and an eventual realization of a totalitarian society. It is characteristic for the various schools of collectivism to attack the idea of "humanity" under misleading and presumptuous names. August Comte rejected "humanity" by designing plans for a "new religion of humanity" which is a thoroughly anti-liberal scheme for human regimentation and submission. The followers of Comte then fully developed this "new religion of humanity." But since nomenclature is immaterial for the purposes of scientific analysis, which is concerned with the essence of the matter, we may disregard this misleading terminology and call the prevalence of the collective over the individual by the more suitable name—collectivism or antihumanity. The doctrine of collectivism makes the happiness of others the directing force of the individual's conduct in life as well as the principle of his happiness. It is obvious that this fundamental principle must rest on the knowledge of what makes up the happiness of others and of the kind of happiness which all others enjoy. But it is easily recognized that such a knowledge is unattainable to the human mind. Collectivism, in this respect, does not reveal at what the individual is supposed to be aiming. What sort of happiness shall the individual secure for others? Collectivists thus are asking the individual to aim at collective happiness before they can tell us in what it consists. They are arguing in a circle by declaring that the happiness of others is the directing force of the happiness of the individual. The individual is supposed to be happy because others are happy who, in turn, are to be happy that others are happy. But this is absurd. Collectivists do not know what collective ends consist of, but they proclaim moral imperatives for which they claim authority to make and execute laws.

Economic Collectivism Means Oppression and Tyranny. Collectivist policies in the economic world find their expression in government measures in favor of the collective entity—the nation or the "class." The institution of private ownership in the means of production is universally condemned by collectivists, and entity ownership, which means state ownership and control, is substituted. Thus all power of ownership is concentrated in the hands of the state. 6 August Comte, Systime de Politique Positive, Paris, 1824; Cours de philosophie positive, 1830-1842; Systeme de politique positive (4 vols., 1851-1854). For an excellent discussion of "collectivism" and social sciences, see F. A. Hayek, The Counter-Revolution of Science, The Free Press, Glencoe, HI., 1952.

ARISTIDE BRIAND AND THE EUROPEAN UNION 149 When ownership is widely diffused, it is impossible for any one man or a few to employ it all at once to evil use. But when all ownership is concentrated in the hands of the state, it is relatively easy for one man or the few in control of the state to turn all that concentrated power to evil use. A diffusion of property in private hands thus is a check on the evil propensities in man, whereas state ownership is the tool for evil to reign. Private ownership of the means of production also has the beneficial effect of giving security to the owner whose liberty of thought and action it promotes. It enables man to pursue courses that he would not be able to pursue if he were the servant of a universal employer. The great thinkers in human history—the leaders, the pioneers, and the discoverers—have been men who enjoyed a sufficient security to free them from dependence upon anyone else and to enable them to pursue their tenor of life without fear or favor.

Collectivists universally condemn private incomes from rent, profit, and interest. If these incomes are abolished, then all individual incomes must be derived from the state or state institutions in the form of wages, salaries, pensions, and allowances. In addition to this contrast in earning income is the opportunity for spending it. The keystone of the profit system is the consumer's freedom to choose and spend his income as he sees fit. Through the operation of the profit motive on the part of producers the consumers' wishes are met. Only through the satisfaction of consumers can profits be made. Thus the whole system is built around the wishes of consumers. The abolition of the profit system means abolition of man's freedom to decide for himself what to consume; the central planners take that prerogative. Collectivists universally condemn the "wasteful competition" of "planless" individuals. They substitute central planning for the freedom of the individual. They introduce controls of foreign exchange and investment, the control of raw materials, the control of prices, and the control of labor. The free choice of a job is abolished and the citizen is coerced to "more useful work" in the service of the state or of "more essential" industries. Central planning necessarily involves the direction of all factors of production including labor.

The control of labor like all other controls, however, is a direct limitation of individual liberty. It concerns everybody as it subjects everybody. Economic Collectivism Leads to International Conflict. Collectivist policies not only infringe upon fundamental liberties of the 150 STEPS TOWARD UNION individual, but also bring about the destruction of international relations. They erect obstacles to international trade in order to realize their collectivist schemes. These obstacles may be classified and summarized as follows: (1) monetary controls which the collectivists introduce as an essential means for the realization of collective programs; (2) fullemployment controls which are to restrict individual activities in accordance with the program of the fullemployment planner; (3) price controls which are to fix prices at a different height from that of the world market; (4) controls connected with government programs for the development of national resources and the protection of infant industries; (5) controls for purposes of war preparedness.

All these obstacles to international trade and relations impede the international exchange of goods and services, thereby reducing the standards of living and rendering more difficult the most practical and essential means by which nations communicate with each other. Among all the fields of international cooperation, foreign trade is the most important. Whoever plans to wage an effective war of aggression must first eliminate ties of trade relations and attain a considerable degree of national self-sufficiency. Cultural, political and other aspects of international relations do not, by far, have the same importance as economic relations have in the daily lives of so many people. But in this important field of international relations it is the collectivist ideology, i.e., the preference of the nation and not of the individual, that directs contemporary policies. Is it humanity that makes us exclude goods from domestic markets simply because they are produced by foreigners? Or for a worker to be prohibited from working at a job simply because he is a foreigner?

All national trade restrictions are government acts of discrimination in favor of certain groups against others. They are direct measures of compulsion and coercion granting privileges to certain citizens and excluding foreigners or restricting and prohibiting the economic activities of foreigners. These were the policies of the European governments at the time Aristide Briand advocated peace and European cooperation. While Briand and a few government delegates at the League of Nations were discussing "eternal peace" and "European Union," economic collectivism triumphed all over Europe. Parliamentary democracy as a form of government was finally abolished in several European states, and systems of government omnipotence were established. All over Europe the ideology of collectivism seized power and beARISTIDE BRIAND AND THE EUROPEAN UNION 151 came diastrous to humanity and mankind. The inevitable outcome of the supremacy of collectivism over humanity was the final catastrophe which came over Europe through the doctrines and deeds of German National Socialism.7 7 See also Wilhelm Ropke, Civitas Humana, 1944, Part 2, p. 200 et seq.; Karl Jaspers, Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte, 1949, p. 280 et seq.; Henrich Hoffmann, Die Humanitdtsidee in der Geschichte des Abendlandes, Bern, 1951.