A FEDERATED EUROPE

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 66, Issue 5597, 26 March 1943, Page 2

A FEDERATED EUROPE

pdsSlßiutiES DEBATED BY NOTABLE SPEAKERS

The following report on a debate on the possibilities of a Federated Europe in the Freedom Forum conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation appears in London Calling. The reporter is Mr G. M. Young, historian and philosopher, who took part in the debate with Professor Harold Laski, the noted economist, Mr Jan Masaryk, deputy-Prime Minister of the Czechoslovak Government in London, and Mr Ed. Murrow, chief of the European Bureau of the Columbia Broadcasting System, as chairman.

The chairman led off by asking for a definition, wfiicn Young ottered to supply: “ f ederation is- an arrangereign States agree to transter certain of thqir rights and powers to a ment by which a number of sovecentral body, on the basis of a written document which specifies what is transferred and what is resei*ved.’ : Laski summarised the arrangement in the words “ Unity not union,” and added that the idea of federation was the same whether the components were few or many. It might include the whole world or only two small States, such as Holland and Belgium. Masaryk pointed out that something further was required which he called like-mindedness—a general agreement as to the purpose and objects of political progress overriding narrower considerations of race or national prestige. Young demurred. Two or more States might be agreed as to their objects, but when it came, for example, to putting the Four Freedoms in practice, they might prefer different methods, and a State was not to be excluded from the Federation because it taught a particular religion in its schools or restricted its franchise in a particular way. WHAT SOVEREIGN RIGHTS CAN BE FEDERALISED ?

With these additions and reservations the definition was accepted, and Murrow asked the Forum for some examples of sovereign rights to be transferred or federalised. Laski gave the control of electric power. If we were to think seriously of a European federation we must have a Federal Power Commission for the whole continent. Masaryk added rail and river transport. He spoke from his experience in Czechoslovakia, a small industrial country with no seaboard. The constant and sometimes sudden alteration of railway tariffs by neighbouring States was a great handicap to its export trade and threw all calculations into confusion. He therefore strongly favoured an International Transport Commission with the exclusive right of fixing and varying railway charges all over Europe. Young added shipping, but he pointed out that these three things were already the subject of legislation in all civilised countries, and to that extent under State control. But a State can only transfer to the federation power which it already has, and there are some matters—such as buying and selling of raw materials, especially those needed in munition-making—-with which, in peace-time, the State does not concern itself at all. Suppose you want the federation to control all transactions in bauxite or tungsten. Then the several States must begin by taking power to control them; that is to say, by limiting the right of the private trader to deal in those commodities.

The chairman asked about currency, and Laski urged that as the enlargement or shrinkage of currency has an enormous effect on the power of a country to import and export, some degree of international control was essential. But as regards raw materials he pointed out that a large measure of private enterprise would still subsist. “In war-time the State controls all foreign trade in the sense that it allows me to deal in this and forbids me to deal in that. So, after the war, there will have to be for some time a system of rationing the priorities, within which the individual trader will have to conduct his business.”

SHOULD GERMANY BE ADMITTED ? Murrow and Masaryk agreed. But Young asked whether in all these projects we were to think of Germany as included or not—as a member of the federation, as a federated territory. or as a mandated area ? Applying Masaryk’s canon of like-minded-ness, he thought a considerable time would elapse before it would be possible to treat Germany as a sovereign State having equal rights with the other European nations. Speaking for the occupied countries, Masaryk agreed that they would be slow to trust Germany again without strong securities for her good behaviour. Laski felt some difficulty. He thought of Germany after the war like an awkward Cabinet colleague. It is sometimes better to keep him in the government where you have your hand on him than to leave him outside organising a Cave of Adullam by himself. We must assume that control of Germany will go on until Germany is fit for membership of the federation. Young agreed: Germany to be admitted on proof of good behaviour as judged by . the other Powers. Murrow, the chairman, pointed out that the discussion was moving towards a kind of functional, not territorial, federation. That being so, the question of method—finding the right •way of handling each of the transferred functions became very important. As Laski saw it, there might well be one method for power, another for transport, a third for raw materials, with a separate commission specially constructed for each; a view which Young supported all the more vigorously because it banished the bugbear of uniformity and left the way open to variety. But, he pointed out we were not starting in a clear field. What is to be done with certain organs left over from the League of Nations ?

SECTIONS OF LEAGUE WORTH PRESERVING

Masaryk said that one at leash of the reasons why the League had failed was that the contracting States clung to their sovereign rights too jealously. But there were some important remnants still functioning which ought to be preserved—the International Labour Office, the Medical Service, the Statistical Service, all doing- excellent work and all deserving to be included in the fabric of the

federation. True, Young replied, the things with which these organs deal—health and food and employment —“ come home to our business and bosoms.” Sovereignty is good for the baby if it means an act of Parliament providing pure miik for children; and if you can say “ A Federal Board of Health means still better milk ” then William and Mary will answer, “ Now you are talking. It is worth giving up some of our sovereign rights to be sure of that.” Laski enlarged the idea in this way: do not hand over powers in general to the federation, but split them into com partments, each with its own organisation explaining itself and justifying itself to the constituted nations. Yes, said Young, and sticking strictly to its own business, making its annual reports and recommendations. A debating society ? No, because those constitutent nations will have bound themselves in advance to be guided by the Commission. It will have a body of really international opinion behind it, always trying to get the recommendations carried out. So, when Laski said: “ Trust in the power of the facts on public opinion,” Young agreed. But Masaryk shook his head. In some countries public opinion is so crude and ill-informed (neither public nor opinion, Laski suggested) that they will want something more positive than guidance by a federal commission. In fact, federation pre-supposes something more than like-mindedness—it implies the acceptance of certain minimum standards laid down by each federal commission.

CONTROL OF AVIATION AFTER THE WAR

The general discussion having established so much agreement in principle, the chairman suggested that the Forum should apply its conclusions to one particular topic—aviation. Laski said he could imagine nothing more fantastic after the war than that each country should have its own system of aviation. A single commission for Europe, one for North America, one for South America, and two of three perhaps for Asia, seemed obvious common sense. Each of them would control its own routes, transport, and manufacture; and ultimately they would build up into a central commission, planning for the whole world. But this again involved, as a preliminary, govenmental control of the national air lines, without which there would be needless and wasteful competition for the production of aeroplanes and the sale of transportation. Masaryk’s experience supported Laski. After the last war every little country had its own air-line and far more factories than it needed or could afford, partly, of course, for strategic reasons, because every aeroplane had its camera to photograph the other country’s defences.

Young woke up, quoting Kipling’s story of the ABC, and asked the Forum before it adjourned to bear in mind two things. One was that to be successfully propagated the idea of federation must be anchored to the things which simple people understand—the three square meals and a job of work to go to, a sound roof, and a decent school. The other: that all those projects do undoubtedly imply a measure of State socialism which not all countries are prepared for.

The chairman asked if the Forum was agreed on sober and limited objectives. Laski shouted for imagination, speed, and scale. Masaryk thought we should dare to go a little too far rather than not go far enough. Young was for quietness and confidence and anything that would make his village happier. Above that village, ’though, said Laski, there is always the sky.