850.33/1–1553: Telegram
No. 147
The Minister in Luxembourg (Mesta) to the Office of the United States Special Representative in
Europe, at Paris1
Topol 35. SRE for Embassy. From Tomlinson. Subject is European coal–steel community. High Authority report was generally well-received by Assembly,2 and almost all speakers prefaced remarks with praise for High Authority’s work to date and for competence of report. Dutch delegates who had complained that report was issued too late for adequate study accepted High Authority promise to publish annual reports in four languages a month before annual meeting of Assembly.
While debate and High Authority replies did not develop many new facts, they indicated questions in which parliamentarians especially interested and demonstrated that, despite limited powers, Assembly intends to play a large role in coal–steel community.
Major questions re problems connected with single market are described in next following telegram.3 This telegram describes other high points raised in debate:
1. Operation of High Authority:
Teitgen and others asked for details on organization of High Authority and individual responsibilities of High Authority members. Monnet replied High Authority members undertook specific missions in accordance with their personal interests and abilities. There was no division of responsibilities and no delegation of High Authority powers to individual members. Treaty requires that High Authority should act collectively and be collectively responsible for its actions.
Monnet explained that while treaty provided for a separate civil service for each institution, presidents of four institutions had agreed to create a single European civil service with a single status.
There was considerable praise, especially from German members, for fact that High Authority had maintained small staff and not created a bureaucracy. High Authority was also complimented for [Page 266] keeping in touch with interested parties through commission system.
2. Role of Assembly on financial questions:
Belgian delegate Wigny, after deploring how few real powers Assembly has, thought it should take particular interest in financial operations. He suggested in particular that Assembly should control High Authority’s use of proceeds of levy destined to support investment programs. Monnet replied that Assembly would be fully informed of financial operations of High Authority, as the money belonged to the whole community. However, decision as to use to make of proceeds of levy is given by treaty to High Authority. He believed that division of responsibility set forth in treaty should be respected.
3. Seat of institution:
Dehousse suggested that determination of permanent seat, an important and urgent matter, should be made by European parliament rather than by six ministers, who had proved themselves incapable of settling this problem.
4. Non-discrimination:
In reply to German Socialist who warned High Authority against creating common market at different times for various member countries, Monnet pointed out that transitional measures would be applied only in interest of community as a whole. Entire reason for High Authority’s existence, he added, was to act for benefit entire community—if it failed in that duty, it would be abusing power and could be brought to task by the court.
5. Social policy:
Much attention in debate centered on social questions. Deputies repeatedly stressed that community and common market were created for social as well as economic and political ends.
Finet replied for High Authority, stating High Authority’s devotion to social purposes of treaty, but pointing out that they had few real powers in this field. Main task was to gather and disseminate information and High Authority currently struggling with serious problem of trying to build comparable social statistics in six countries.
6. Wages:
Various deputies, especially Socialists, stressed importance of harmonizing wages and social security benefits among member states. Coppe replied that High Authority was conscious of problem and of its duty under Article 3 of treaty, but had virtually no direct powers in field.
[Page 267]7. Housing:
Housing program in High Authority report strongly approved by deputies from coal-mining areas. Only criticism came from those who objected that coal miners and steel workers should not have excessively favorable position in obtaining new housing.
8. Discrimination in favor of CSC:
Several deputies complained that creation of community gave coal and steel industries relatively favored position with respect to such questions as access to financial markets, movement of labor, payments, transport rates, et cetera, as well as housing. Other deputies used this position as argument for extension of single market and supranational institutution to other fields.
9. Harmonization of external tariffs:
In reply to question on GATT refusal to give general waiver, Spierenburg explained that CSC not a customs union because commercial policy with third countries was national function under treaty.
10. Expansionist economic policy:
In reply to worries that investment programs would create danger of over-capacity, both Etzel and Coppe laid great stress on fact High Authority’s plans were based and must be based on assumption of expanding economy. They pointed to low consumption per capita of coal and steel in community as compared United States, and to rate of expansion in United States and Soviet Union over past twenty years. Common market would create new conditions of economic growth.
11. Competitive sources of energy:
A Dutch delegate also expressed fear coal demand over-estimated in High Authority report because of likelihood that coal would be displaced as energy source by fuel oil and methane gas in next ten years. High Authority agreed to study this point.