Episode 13: WHAT THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY TEACHES US ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF A SHARED SYSTEM OF GLOBAL ETHICS

In this episode we explore another lesson modeled by the European Coal and Steel Community that is worth emulating and that is the importance of weaving a set of first principles or shared system of global ethics into the very structure and processes of new institutions of global governance necessary to create a peaceful and just world.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Sovaida 0:08

Hello and welcome to Reimagining Our World, a podcast dedicated to envisioning a better world and to infusing hope that we can make the principled choices to build that world. In this episode, we explore yet another lesson modelled by the European Coal and Steel community that is worth emulating, and that is the importance of weaving a set of first principles or shared system of global ethics into the very structure and processes of new institutions of global governance necessary to create a peaceful and just world. Last week in episode 12, we began talking about the importance of modeling for success. That if we're envisioning the kind of world we want to have with, amongst other things, a supranational decision making body like a global legislature or a world parliament, what comes to mind are knee jerk reactions to say, "Oh, but we can't do that." and we talked about the fact that yes, "We can." One of the ways that human beings do difficult things that they think they can't is by looking at other instances in in our past where we have overcome difficult challenges and ask ourselves, "What did I do then? What did we do then as a global community? And what did it take, what qualities or actions or skills did it require? How can we learn from those and apply something similar so that we can do what we set out to do today. And we talked about that principle that "success leaves clues," that famous saying, which I love so much. And then we started talking about the European Coal and Steel community that was created in the aftermath of the Second World War in Europe as a means to reconstruct Europe, to pull it out of the depths of its degradation and destruction that had come about as a result of the war, and created peace essentially in Europe, a Europe that had otherwise been prone to wars over centuries, especially wars over coal. We said that there were two key factors in the success of the European Coal and Steel Community. And last time we talked about one of the key factors, which was the qualities and motivations of a handful of leaders who spearheaded this innovative idea. Today, we're going to explore the second really important lesson that we can learn from the European Coal and Steel Community and a lesson that is truly worth emulating. Here's the lesson. It is the importance of weaving a foundational set of principles. or a shared set of ethics, into the very structure, the procedures, and every aspect of the operation of institutions of governance, including institutions of global governance that we're creating. So when we're talking, for instance, about the creation of a world parliament, what are the foundational principles that need to actually be woven into the creation of the structure into its very fabric? And in doing so, when we look at the ECSC we're going to focus on the massive transformational effect of applying two deceptively simple foundational principles, shared ethics, if you like, and the secondary principles that flow from them. These were embedded in the very structures of the ECSC and it's what gave it the power and the ability to transform the lives of an entire continent and bring them peace, security, and in fact economic flourishing. Okay, let's start. The very first principle that we can glean in our analysis of the European Coal and Steel Community is the principle of the oneness of peoples and nations. There's a corollary to this principle that I also want to articulate and share with you. The corollary is that if we are all truly one, then the advantage of any one country or one people or one ethnic group can only be secured by securing the advantage of the whole. We had a whole episode about that on how humanity's essentially become a single organism. We gave a couple of analogies of the ship with different cabins but that needs a captain at the helm, and we gave the analogy of the human body, with every organ representing a nation, and that for the global community to be healthy, basically all the organs and limbs need to be healthy. How was this principle operationalized within the structure and the operations of the ECSC? This is a really interesting exercise and we're going to look at it in practice so that, we share these lofty ideas like oneness and we say, "Oh yeah, but seriously, what difference is it going to make?" So today we're going to actually look at this. This principle was manifested, first of all, in the recognition and acceptance of a system, the European Coal and Steel Community that understood that all the member nations of the system had common interests. And that they could best serve these common interests by working together collaboratively and in consultation rather than alone. They understood that working together for shared goals meant that they could avoid the trap that occasional competition or even opposition to each other would lead to war because they had experienced this. There's a beautiful quote from the mastermind of this concept of the European Coal and Steel Community, Jean Monnet, who put this concept in high relief during his opening remarks at a conference in June 1950 in Paris. He said, "We're here to undertake a common task. Not to negotiate for our own national advantage, but to seek it to the advantage of all." That was a truly revolutionary approach. When you think even of our world today, how often do we hear leaders stand up and talk in these terms? The second foundational principle, is the principle of equity, fairness, and justice. I lump them together, but really justice is at the root of it. How was it woven into the processes and structure of the ECSC? This principle is discernible in the very purpose and workings of the ECSC, namely to ensure that the supply of coal and steel was made available to member states on equal terms, within a common market, so that each member state could achieve its national objectives in the sectors of coal and steel. An analogy to today is imagine today's world where every nation really wants to have equal access and fair access to the vaccine in order to overcome COVID within their borders. Imagine what it would be like if we had such a supranational body, like a global legislature, that was able to ensure adequate production and fair distribution of a COVID vaccine, for example. Application of this principle within the ECSC was also evident, and this is really interesting, in the way decisions were to be made by the High Authority, which was the big decision making body of this community. The High Authority was to operate as a college in which decisions would be taken by a majority of vote given that they had at least a quorum of more than half of the members present. There was going to be no requirement of unanimity or right of veto. Jean Monnet was very conscious that both of these limitations of unanimity and a veto had been one of the things that had hampered traditional intergovernmental organizations, including the League of Nations, which had failed, and in which he had served as Deputy Secretary General. Simple majority voting without any veto meant that no one nation could hold other nations hostage to its own interests. Again, think of the Security Council and the right of veto and how that right of veto has hampered the ability of this institution that was tasked with maintaining and preserving peace in the world, how this veto has hampered it from actually achieving its purpose. It's really such a shame. This lesson is one that we would really do well to learn. Before I move on to the third principle, which is a secondary principle that flows from these two key principles of oneness and justice, I want to observe that true justice becomes a norm in our society and will become a norm, only when we deeply understand our oneness. Although the two are interrelated and run neck and neck, if you were to ask me, I would suggest that oneness is actually the root principle. Because once we understand and are fully conscious and embrace our oneness, then we will automatically want to treat each other justly. If I think that you and I are one, and we are created equally and equally noble and equally loved by a creator and have equal capacity and equal rights, then I will want to ensure that you have as many opportunities and privileges and rights as I do, right? So it's a natural outgrowth, if you like, of the root principle of oneness. Now there are other secondary principles that flow from the twin principles of oneness and justice. And the third one that we see, that was embedded within the structure of the ECSC was the principle of the need to cede a modicum of national sovereignty to a supranational institution. It was absolutely essential if the member nations were to pool their coal and steel resources into the hands of this High Authority of this community that they be willing to cede sovereignty in this very important economic area. As Jean Monnet famously put it, he said the Schuman proposal, so this is Robert Schuman, who was the foreign minister of France, we discussed last week who was on board with this proposal for an ECSC. He says, "The Schuman proposals are revolutionary or they are nothing." Then he goes on to say, "The indispensable first principle of these proposals is the abnegation of sovereignty in a limited but decisive field." He was very cognizant when he came up with this brainchild that these principles had to be foundational and embedded within the very structure of this body, because in his view, a plan without such a principle as its basis could make no useful contribution towards the major problems plaguing Europe at the time, which included physical destruction, economic destruction demoralization, and so on, and lack of peace. Obviously, they'd just come out of a horrible conflict and war. He emphasized that cooperation between nations, while essential, cannot alone meet our problem. He said what had to be sought was a fusion of the interests of the European people, rather than an effort to maintain the equilibrium of those interests. When I was growing up in Kenya and East Africa, I remember being out in the villages one time and somebody asking the question about unity and what does it mean to have fused interests. A wonderfully wise person, villager, who was illiterate but had incredible wisdom, stood up and said, May I please try to explain this? And here's what he said, and it stuck with me even though I was a child then. He said, "Balancing interests is like making a salad. You have different vegetables. You chop up the lettuce and the carrots and the tomatoes and you stick it in. But when you eat the salad, you taste, Oh, I just bit into a carrot as distinct from a tomato or a, piece of celery. He said, but if you apply a heat and make this into a soup and add some water and make a soup. When you start to eat the soup, you no longer differentiate between the different ingredients. There is a fused, beautiful new creation." That image has totally stuck with me all these years, and it just came to mind, so I thought I would share it with you. Now, I want you to notice, as we proceed through these principles, how the articulation and the faithful application of these principles in the context of the ECSC, which we're using as a model that we can emulate to create our institutions of global governance today, how the faithful uh application of these demonstrates how a sizable segment of collective humanity was in the process of developing new capabilities and instruments of governance to fit humanity's needs at this stage in which it's approaching collective maturity. You'll remember we had a session on the fact that the journey of human beings throughout history is one from infancy to maturity, and that we're now approaching that stage of maturity. So we need new capabilities. And again, the ECSC is an amazing model because it shows us that it is possible to do this. On to the next secondary principle, which is autonomy and independence in decision making. We talked about majority voting and the way of making decisions. Now we're talking about, "Where do you get the ideas for the decisions you're going to make?" Jean Monnet was determined that once nations had ceded a portion of their sovereignty to the supranational organization, that it had to be totally independent and autonomous. He knew that in traditional old intergovernmental organizations, including the UN today, which didn't exist at the time but does exist today, these organizations generally require that the executive subordinate its decisions to the representatives of member states. So they take instructions from their governments. You see this all the time. The ambassador says, "I have to go back to my government and take instructions to see if they'll let me do A, B or C or not." Now to ensure that this High Authority, this group of individuals who are going to make the decisions, were autonomous, several things were done. One was to ensure that these members were appointed by joint agreement of all the nations, so that trust was there. Side note here, I propose that in today's world, if we want to set up a supranational body like a world parliament, it's no longer good enough to have individuals appointed even if they're agreed to by all nations. Rather, they need to be directly elected by the citizens of each country in proportion to the size of their population. And that's how you gain the trust of humanity in the members of this supranational body. Monet was also adamant that these people, who had to have technical expertise in coal and steel, that they also have a concern for the general interest. And he was adamant that it was possible to find a small number of persons of what he called real stature who were capable of rising above their particularistic interests of each of their nations to work for the accomplishment of common objectives. He incorporated the requirement of independence into the treaty that established this organization. In fact, the treaty specifies that members of the organization were not allowed to either seek or accept instructions from their governments or any other body. This is fascinating. This principle, in other words, was inculcated into the very culture and practice of the High Authority from its very inception. This business of creating the culture through the correct mindsets and habits right from the inception of an organization is absolutely key. And then ensuring that these principles are woven into the processes. Okay, the next secondary principle of the application of the foundational principles of oneness and justice was the importance of financial independence of an institution. Jean Monnet was very cognizant that in the past with intergovernmental organizations, and again we see it with the UN today, it's based on national contributions, and we see the problem that it causes. The nations who pay more money feel that they should have more influence on decision making, and it causes real problems of unfairness, lack of justice, and is a reflection of a lack of understanding of the principle of oneness. So he said, "Scrap that. That doesn't work. Operations of this institution are to be funded by a small levy, assessed annually, so a tax basically, on the production of various products like coal and steel." It was incredibly successful, because the decision makers couldn't take instructions from their governments or anyone else, and they didn't have to rely on their governments for national contributions. So even if the governments didn't like their decisions, they didn't have the ability to hold them hostage. This was an amazing application, to my mind, of the principles of oneness and justice. The next principle is working for the collective interest and common goals. People feared that this European Coal and Steel Community was simply a super cartel that would restrict output and gouge customers. But a couple of the key differences had to do with the people in charge and their objectives. Whereas in cartels, they were run by delegates of industry who were charged with serving the interests of their principles, their main goal being to make profits. The ECSC was to be entrusted to a group of individuals who were independent of their governments and any principles, and who had a concern for the general interest. And the goals, rather than making profits, was to benefit the interests of all member states, the collective six nations. The last principle that I want to share with you is that all decisions were to be binding and enforceable. This was a really important principle. In other words, decisions made by the High Authority were mandatory. They had to be complied with by all nation states and enforceable. Again, Monet was very conscious that one of the key reasons many international organizations and intergovernmental organizations had failed was that they lacked the capacity to bind their members with their decisions and to enforce them if the members said, "Hey, we're not going to accept this decision." He knew it was insufficient to rely solely on the good faith of national governments to ensure compliance with treaty obligations. He knew that those very frailties had contributed to defeating the League of Nations. Notice how we're still learning this lesson today. Think about climate change, the Paris Accords based on voluntary pledges made by countries. As Monet knew, you can't rely on the good faith of nations to either make pledges that are sufficient to attain the goals, or to actually be true to their word and follow their pledges. With each new government that comes in, or new administration, or new leader, the whole system is at risk. To ensure that these decisions were both binding and enforceable, again, how were these principles of oneness and justice embedded in the structure? Monnet created a system in which decisions of the High Authority would have direct effect upon and within member states. In other words, they wouldn't need to pass additional legislation adopting the decisions of the High Authority. It would automatically be part of national law. Also, the High Authority could exercise direct control within the territory of each member state. The High Authority could fine or penalize enterprises that violated the provisions of the treaty. Next, the High Authority could use the courts, the judiciary arm of the member states themselves and their legal procedures to enforce its decisions without needing the help of the member states, so that they couldn't delay. Beyond that, it wasn't even dependent on the judiciary of the member states because the treaty provided for a court of justice for the ECSC that could itself make decisions that were binding on nations, and the decision would take precedence over national law within those countries. So every which way nations might try, or enterprises or individuals might try to undermine the decisions of the High Authority, which were supposedly binding, they were stopped. There were barriers created to ensure that this was a viable system. I want to end with this. One of the big lessons of the creation of this amazing European Coal and Steel community was that the state parliamentarians initially were shocked and concerned and said, "Seriously? We're going to give up so much of our sovereignty to this supranational organization that has legislative, judicial, and executive power over us and bypasses us, the parliamentarians?" Although they had all these reservations, after debating it vigorously and thinking about it, they realized that at the end, each of their nations would be better off pooling their coal and steel resources, as opposed to going it alone. So what is the conclusion that we reach with respect to our vision of creating supranational institutions of global governance, starting with a world parliament that we spent a couple of sessions unpacking? While we may say, "Oh, it's not possible. It'll never be done, and no nation is going to cede sovereignty, and besides, how are we going to do it?" We've learned that one of the key ways that we do it is by articulating a set of global ethics that we identify, achieve consensus around, and then apply methodically towards creating the very structures as we've discussed today and looking at the seven principles that we looked at with the foundations of oneness and justice and how we embed them into a system of global governance that ensures that decisions are made in the interests of the global community, that they are based on an understanding that we're all one, and that they are equitable and just, and are therefore capable of addressing the critical global challenges of our time, not least of which is climate change, not least of which is the pandemic the threat of a nuclear holocaust, and a global economic recession that could decimate lots of people. On that note I will end my presentation and simply say that if you like this material, you can find plenty more of this in the new book, The Alchemy of Peace, that you can find on Amazon worldwide. It just came out in January of this year. I will bid you all adieu. Take care of yourselves and thank you for tuning in. That's all for this episode of Reimagining Our World. I'll see you back here next month. If you liked this episode, please help us to get the word out by rating us and subscribing to the program on your favorite podcast platform. This series is also available in video on the YouTube channel of the Center for Peace and Global Governance, CPGG.