Assignment 1: A Critical Approach to the Schuman Declaration (1950)

Date: 18.04.2010

Course: Back to the Source

Version: Final Version

1)

According to Barlow, “it is frequently difficult to assess [the] validity” of electronic

documents “or even to determine its authorship” (Barlow, 1998, p.206). That is for the fact

that everyone can publish texts on the Internet and documents are “much less filtered” (ibid.).

Errors can be repeated by other authors and might be received as facts. Another problem is

that they can evoke dishonesty, as it is easy to plagiarize them. Even worse is, that sometimes

a useful article on the Internet has no author or simply disappears (ibid., pp. 207-210).

“[E]lectronic materials in historical studies…” are therefore given less weight than printed

sources (ibid., p. 211).

Unlike electronic sources however, printed books are mostly chosen by trained

specialists, before being placed in the library. They have a stable content and reference and

are supported by multiple authors. Even if a text should not have an author, the words of a

trustworthy publishing house should give evidence for its reliability. However, due to the ever

increasing number of online publications, University Presses will face major economic

difficulties to publish their books (ibid., pp. 206-210).

In general Barlow argues that traditional ways of research based on printed sources

that have been reviewed many times by other authors and library staff are more useful for a

student paper or scientific work than electronic documents which can not be properly assessed

(ibid., pp. 209-211).

However, the Internet does not only provide disadvantages and we have to remind

ourselves that the text from Barlow was published in 1998. Since then many things have

changed in means of benefitting from electronic sources. First of all it is comparably little

effort to browse the Internet than the library. Furthermore there is a mass of data provided,

which can easily be found by search engines. There are many blogs and websites where

researchers can interconnect with each other and share their experiences and academic works.

However, it is from crucial importance that students apply the seven questions very

critical when dealing with electronic sources. After comprehensive research about the topic,

the first step is to check with what category of source we are dealing with and whether the

source is authentic. Is the author reliable? Furthermore, we should ask ourselves what

intentions the author could have had to publish his work and whether the source is complete

or just a summary. We have to assess which “circumstances are relevant to understand the

source” and have to check its credibility (Caljé, 1989, pp. 221-228). Finally, I would suggest

to add a question about the credibility of the website when dealing with electronic sources.

This is very important, as many websites on the Internet are not checked for reliability.

2)

a. In Assignment 1 in the Course Book, the European Navigator (ENA) is mentioned.

This website allows online access to many thousand documents about Europe in their original

language and translated. I therefore started to research on this very page: http://www.ena.lu/.

After typing in “Schuman Declaration” in the search function, several documents came up,

dealing with the original drafts of the Schuman Declaration. When I scrolled down a bit

further, I finally found a version for further use:

http://www.ena.lu/schuman_declaration_paris_1950-2-17809. I compared this version with

another one, which I found over the search function from http://www.google.com/, via typing

in Schuman Declaration and then clicking on the link provided by the page which is also

mentioned in the Course Book as reliable, viz.

http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/9-may/decl_en.htm. It turned out that both versions were exactly

the same. Then, I compared the versions with the one in the Course Book and figured out that

the Nelsen&Stubb version not only misses one whole page after the “last” paragraph, but also

the sentence, starting with: “Europe, with new means…” (Schuman, 1950, p. 1).

b. In his Declaration, Schuman presents several reasons that are needed to achieve a

“united Europe” (Schuman, 1950, p.1). He first mentions France and “her essential aim the

service of peace” (ibid.). He stresses that immediate action has to be taken with the prior aim

to “[eliminate]…the age-old opposition of France and Germany (ibid.). Furthermore Schuman

“proposes [a] Franco-German production of coal and steel…under a common High

Authority”, as basis for “economic development…” (ibid.). As a result of the “solidarity in

production”, “any war between France and Germany becomes…materially impossible”

(ibid.). In addition, “this powerful productive unit, open to all countries…will lay a true

foundation for their economic unification” (ibid.). It will help to raise living standards and can

“pursue…one of [Europe’s] essential tasks: the development of the African Continent” (ibid.).

Schuman introduces the task of the common High Authority1 and proposes an investment plan

(ibid., p.2). Finally he wants all his goals signed and ratified under a treaty (ibid.). In order to

“safeguard…the working of the new organization…[a] representative of the United Nations…

will make a public report to the United Nations twice [a year]” (ibid.).

1 I.e. securing the identical supply of coal and steel; freeing all customs duty; and improving of production, quality and living conditions of workers in the member countries.

c. The speech was held by the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman and was

addressed “to the Federal Republic of Germany and other European countries” (Ena, 2010).

Although “Schuman’s address could not be recorded on 9 May 1950” in the Salon de

l’Horloge in Paris, it had been written down (ibid.). And as different versions from different

reliable websites (ENA; Europa.eu) are the same, there is no reason to scrutinise the

authenticity of this primary source (Überrest). However, looking at Schuman’s background

and at the Declaration in its historical context, it seems as if there were rather different

interests behind the surface.

Robert Schuman was born in 1886 in Clausen/Luxembourg. His mother was

Luxembourgian and his father came from Lorraine. Schuman grew up bilingual and was

similarly affected by German and French Culture (hdg, 2010). He studied in Bonn, Munich

and Berlin, and obtained his Doctor in Strasbourg. During World War I, he served in the

German army, but in 1918, after the separation of Alsace-Lorraine he became a French

citizen. Therefore, Schuman experienced the Franco-German hostility, which can be traced

back until Napoleonic times. It is thus no wonder that he argued for a Franco-German

reconciliation, although it is said that he never disregarded the economic goals of France

(ibid.). However, as foreign Minister (1948-53), Schuman was not in the position to make

solitary decisions and following the events of World War II there still remained French

scepticism against Germany. In 1949, “voices in Washington were…calling for German

rearmament” and “French diplomacy was on the horns of a dilemma: should it…agree to the

resurgence of German industrial power in the Ruhr and the Saar, or should it…deadlock its

relation with Bonn?” (Fontaine, p.4). Schuman got “an urgent assignment” by the US and the

British, “to come up with a proposal for reintegrating Federal Germany into the Western

concert” (ibid.). As the governments wanted to meet on 10 May 1950, Schuman was given

not much time to decide and to publish his Declaration (ibid.). However, it was finally Jean

Monnet’s concept that was handed to Schuman, who said “I’ll use it” and who sent it secretly

to Konrad Adenauer, who also accepted it (ibid., p.5). In my opinion, it was therefore not so

much the positive sounding words of Schuman, to build an economic union in order to

preserve peace and to support Africa that should be trusted. Rather, I believe that it was both,

the international pressure and France’s aim to keep West Germany as weak as possible, and to

bind German industry to Europe in order to “make any war materially impossible” that forced

Monnet and Schuman to propose the Declaration (Schuman, 1950, p.1).

3)

I started my research at http://www.google.com/ and typed “Treaty of Paris” into the search

field. After I had checked several Treaties on different links, whereas in all of them the word

“supranational” was no longer present, I finally came to the original Treaty on the website of

the Universidad de Zaragoza: http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/library/historic

%20documents/Paris/TRAITES_1951_CECA.pdf. I skimmed through the pages and found in

Chapter I in “Article 9 contd.” on p. 16 the word supranational in context with the

performance of the High Authority. I therefore suggest that I was dealing with the right

Treaty.

4)

a. & b.The main proposals Schuman gave in his Declaration are basically reproduced in the

Treaty of Paris and eventually led, on 18 April 1951, to the establishment of the ECSC. Just

like Schuman, the Treaty of Paris also aims at “world peace” and “peaceful relations”

between its members, as well as “the establishment of common bases for economic

development” in order to “raise the standard of living” and “resolve…[the] age-old rivalries”

(ECSC, 1951, p.3). Furthermore that all these goals will be subordinated under “the duty of

the High Authority to ensure that the objectives…are attained…” (ibid., p.14). We can thus

say that the Treaty of Paris abides many aspects of the Schuman Declaration and holds the

position of a role model for many further European Treaties. However, the Treaty is much

more precise on every mentioned goal and introduces further aims of the Community. For

example are the concerns for social and cultural development and environmental issues much

more integrated in the Treaty as in the Declaration. Finally, we could say that the Treaty,

although aiming primarily on economic issues, also considers the welfare of the people and

the environment, which is a great difference to the Declaration.

5) References

Barlow, J. G. (1998). Historical research and electronic evidence. In D. A. Trinkle (Ed.),

Writing, teaching, and researching history in the electronic age: historians and computers

(pp.205-212, 217-221). Armonk, London: Sharpe

Fontaine, P. (2000). The Schuman Declaration. Retrieved 12 April, 2010 from eleum:

http://www.eppgroup.eu/Activities/docs/divers/schuman-en.pdf

Europa (2010). Declaration of 9 May 1950. europa.eu. Retrieved April 15, 2010, from

http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/9-may/decl_en.htm

European Navigator (ENA) (2010). Schuman Declaration (1951). ena.lu. Retrieved April 14,

2010, from http://www.ena.lu/declaration_robert_schuman_paris_1950-2-4999

Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (2010). Robert Schuman (1886-1963).

hdg.de. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from

http://www.hdg.de/lemo/html/biografien/SchumanRobert/index.html

Marwick, A. (1989). The nature of history (3rd ed.). Houndmills, New York: Palgrave,

pp.221-228

Universidad de Zaragoza (2010). Treaty establishing The European Coal and Steel

Community (1951) (Draft English Text). unizar.es. Retrieved April 16, 2010, from

http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/library/historic%20documents/Paris/

TRAITES_1951_CECA.pdf