Appendix to Charles de Gaulle on European Project
Press Conference, May 15th 1962
As detailed in De Gaulle’s thoughts in the previous entry, he was increasingly concerned about the tendency of “supranationality” in the European Communities. Fearing a gradual loss of national independence and a reliance on “commissions of wise men” to govern Europe, he came up with a plan to address the issue.
The language of the plan outlined goals for the nations including “the protection of the values on which their civilization rests”, a common foreign policy, and several intergovernmental structures. However, it emphasized that enforcement would be up to the states, and they would not be bound by the resolutions unless they opted into them.
De Gaulle’s aims in reality had less to do with the specific organizations or minutia, but rather with creating a common European cooperation that would rest with the nation-states of the union themselves. To create a European habit, and to keep it within the framework of sovereign, independent nations.
On May 14th 1962, the Fouchet Plan was rejected by the other members of the EC for excluding the United Kingdom, and for doing away with the “supranational” structures. The next day, De Gaulle addressed the press on these questions, here is a part of those remarks.
Charles de Gaulle
Ladies and gentlemen, I assure you that I am happy to see you. Before we begin our dialogue, I would like to ask your permission to say a few general words which are, in a way, the philosophy of what I might have to say to you later.
Our time and our world are dominated by an immense fact that holds the destiny of every people and every individual in suspense. It is, of course, the atomic fact. There are two powers in the universe, both of which have the means to destroy nations in a few hours. I think that we should not look elsewhere for the fundamental reason for this kind of doubt, of political disinterest that the generations of today show towards the principles, the doctrines which, in the past, aroused faith and ardor.
Many do not believe that ideologies are to be trusted. When in an instant everything can be destroyed to the core, and in the conditions that result from this situation, the great problems of the world cannot be deliberately solved. So, in this world situation, France inspires its policy, as much as possible, with practical sense. And, let's put it bluntly, of modesty.
It seeks to achieve what seems possible and what is within its reach. Taking advantage of the continuity and stability that these institutions provide, it aims to achieve three essential and interrelated objectives in its international action. First, to free itself from the political, economic and military obligations that it had to assume in the past with regard to the overseas peoples who were under its dependence, and that the general evolution rendered, each day, more futile and costly, and to transform these relations with them into a contractual and regular cooperation in which development and friendship find their account, and which, moreover, can be extended to others.
Moreover, to contribute to the construction of Europe in the field of politics, i.e., defense, as well as in that of the economy, in such a way that the expansion and the action of this ensemble will help French prosperity and security, and at the same time will revive the possibilities of a European balance with respect to the countries of the East.
Finally, to combine the creation of a modern national force. To combine this creation with our scientific, technical, economic and social progress, so that within the framework of a necessary alliance and with a view, if necessary, to an international détente, we can, whatever happens, have our own share in our own destiny.
That is what I wanted to say at the beginning. And now the floor is yours, if you will. I will ask you to formulate the questions that some of you want to ask me. We will put them in order, in series, and I will answer them to the best of my ability. So I ask those of you, ladies and gentlemen, who wish to ask me something, to please stand up and say it.
Journalist
…from Paris Presse. General, I would like to ask you for what reason France presented its project of political organization of the Europe of the Six?
Charles de Gaulle
I thank you very much.
Journalist
Around the same problem. Could you, Mr. President, tell us what you think of the objections that are made to the French project of political organization of the European economic community?
Charles de Gaulle
Why did we propose a draft organization and what do I think of the objections that have been made? That’s for Europe. Is there another question?
[…]
Journalist
General, what were the reasons that determined France to present a project, known as the Fouchet plan, for the political organization of the Europe of the Six?
Charles de Gaulle
In a world like ours, where everything comes down to the threat of a world conflict, the idea of a united Europe that would have enough strength, enough means and enough cohesion to exist by itself, this idea appears quite naturally. And it appears all the better because the enmities that had torn it apart for centuries, and in particular the opposition between Germany and France, have now ceased.
So, all of a sudden, there you have it, highlighted, first of all the character that can be called complementary from a geographical, strategic, economic, cultural point of view, which exists, the common, complementary characters that exist between the peoples of this part of the old continent, Western Europe, and then, at the same time, the global capacity that they represent in terms of power, in terms of production, creation, exchanges, etc., in relation to the general activity of the universe.
And then, finally, the possibilities that their whole could offer to the two billion men who populate the underdeveloped countries. These are the facts that have led six states of the continent to try to establish special links between them. During the World War, I would like to remind you that I already proclaimed that this evolution was one of the essential goals of France.
In this respect, we have already done something positive, called the European Economic Community, which was created by virtue of the Treaty of Rome, created in principle, and which was implemented thanks, first of all, to our economic and financial recovery of 58-59, because if we had not made that recovery, there would not have been a community.
Secondly, thanks to the fact that we obtained, last January, the inclusion of agriculture in the common market. And at the same time, we agreed to move on to what is called the second phase, i.e. real application. So, this is done. There is an economic organization such that little by little, the customs barriers between the Six are disappearing, which does not fail to arouse their efforts.
And then also, gradually, their respective productions are adjusted, are regulated in such a way that the common market can, in good order, either absorb them itself or exchange them outside. This is something, this is a lot. But it is not everything. In the eyes of France, this economic construction is not enough. Western Europe, whether it is a question of its action towards other peoples, or of its defense, or of its contribution to the development of regions that need it, or of its duty of European equilibrium and international détente, Western Europe must constitute itself politically.
Journalist
Mr. President, I was asking what you think of the objections made to this project, and if you allow me to clarify my question, my question concerns both the objections made outside, notably by Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak, and those made in France, notably during the recent debate in the National Assembly.
Charles de Gaulle
It is perfectly true that the French proposals have raised two objections, which are, moreover, perfectly contradictory, even though they are presented by the same opponents. And here are those two objections. These opponents tell us: "You want to make a Europe of the nations, we want to make a supranational Europe". As if a formula were enough to confuse together these powerfully established entities called peoples and States.
And then, the same opponents tell us, at the same time: "England has applied to enter the common market. As long as she is not in, we can do nothing politically". And yet, everyone knows that England, as a great state, and as a nation faithful to itself, would never agree to dissolve itself in some utopian construction.
I would like, incidentally, since this is the occasion, I apologize to the journalists. You will be quite surprised, but I have never, in any of my statements, spoken of the Europe of the nations, although it is always claimed that I have done so. It is not, of course, that I deny my own, quite the contrary. I am more attached to it than ever.
And besides, I do not believe that Europe can have any living reality if it does not include France with its French, Germany with its Germans, Italy with its Italians, etc. Dante, Goethe, Chateaubriand belong to the whole of Europe insofar as they were respectively and eminently Italian, German and French. They would not have served Europe much if they had been stateless and had thought and written in some integrated Esperanto or Volapük.
So, it is true that the homeland is a sentimental human element and that it is on elements of action, of authority, of responsibility that we can build Europe. Which elements? Well, the States. Because only the States are valid, legitimate and, moreover, capable of achieving. I have already said, and I repeat, that at the present time, there can be no other possible Europe than that of the States, apart, of course, from the myths, the fictions, the parades.
Moreover, what is happening to the economic community proves this every day. For it is the States, and only the States, that have created this economic community, that have provided it with credit and that have provided it with officials. And it is the States that give it reality and efficiency. And all the more so because no important economic measure can be taken without committing a political act.
Politics are conducted when tariffs are handled in common, when coalmines are converted, when efforts are made to ensure that salaries and social charges are the same in the six States, when each State allows workers from the other five to come and settle in its own country, when decrees are issued as a result of all this, when the Parliament is asked to pass laws, credits, and the necessary sanctions.
Politics are conducted when agriculture is brought into the common market. It is the six States, and only them, that have reached this, last January, through their political authorities. Politics are conducted when dealing with the association of Greece or the African States or the Malagasy Republic. Politics are conducted when negotiating with Great Britain about its application to join the common market. It is done when we consider the applications of other states for participation or association.
We do so when we are led to consider the demands which the United States announces with regard to its economic relationship with the Community. The truth is that the economic development of Europe cannot be assured without its political union. In this connection, I would like to point out how arbitrary is a certain idea that has appeared in recent debates, which claims to remove the economic field from the meetings of Heads of State or Government, when for each of them, in their respective countries, this is the daily and most important subject.
I would like to speak more specifically about the objection of integration. It is opposed to us by saying: "Let's found together the six states in something supra-national, in a supra-national entity. And so, everything will be very simple and very practical". This national entity is not proposed because it does not exist. There is no federator in Europe today that has sufficient strength, credit and appeal.
So we fall back on a kind of hybrid and say: "Well, at least the six states accept, undertake to submit to what will be decided by a certain majority". At the same time, they say: "There are already six European parliaments, six national parliaments, more exactly, a European parliamentary assembly. There is even a parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe which, it is true, predates the conception of the Six and which, I am told, is dying on the edge where it was left. Well, in spite of all that, let's elect one more parliament, which we will call European, and which will make the law to the six States".
These are ideas that may, perhaps, charm some minds, but I do not see how they could be practically realized even if we had six signatures on a paper. Is there a France, is there a Germany, is there an Italy, is there a Holland, is there a Belgium, is there a Luxembourg that would be ready to do, on a question that is important for them from a national and international point of view, what would seem to them to be wrong because it would be ordered by others?
Are the French people, the German people, the Italian people, the Dutch people, the Belgian people, the Luxembourg people ready to submit to laws voted by foreign deputies if these laws go against their deepest will? This is not true. There is no way, at this time, that a majority can force, a foreign majority, to force recalcitrant nations.
It is true that in this integrated Europe, as they say, well, there might not be any politics at all. That would simplify things a lot. And then, in fact, since there would be no France, no Europe, there would be only one policy, and since we could not impose one on each of the six States, we would refrain from making any. But then, perhaps, the whole world would follow someone from outside, who would have one.
Perhaps there would be a federator, but it would not be European, and it would not be an integrated Europe. It would be something else, something much broader and much more extensive, with, I repeat, a federator. And perhaps this is what, to some extent and sometimes, inspires some of the statements made by some of the supporters of European integration. So it would be better to say so.
You see, when we talk about the great affairs, well, we find it pleasant to dream of the wonderful lamp, you know, the one that Aladdin only had to rub to fly above reality. But there is no magic formula to build something as difficult as a united Europe. So let's put reality at the base of the building. When we have done the work, we will be able to lull ourselves to the tales of a thousand and one nights…