"Among people who are geographically grouped as the people of Europe, there must be some sort of federal link.” This is how the French foreign minister Aristide Briand presented his plan for a federal European Union or the Briand Project of European Union, as it is known today, for the first time on September 5, 1929, in Geneva, before the tenth general Assembly of the League of Nations. Aristide Briand was renowned as a great orator and negotiator, and also a staunch defender of peace. He was also (this time as Minister of Foreign Affairs) known for negotiating the Treaty of Locarno in 1925 with his German counterpart Stresemann.
His speeches and his plans were initially received with great enthusiasm by the European states present at the meeting. He was then asked to prepare a memorandum for May 17, 1930, regarding this project. Following the submission of his plan to the 26 members of the European League (which had to be made before July 15, 1930), he was then asked to submit a project completed before the eleventh meeting of the League in September 1930.
However, if, as we said, his speeches were received with enthusiasm, a certain hesitation was already being felt by some governments, including that of Great Britain, represented by Henderson, who was in charge of the Foreign Office. Thus, we can then ask why Britain has caused the failure of the plan of a federal union of Aristide Briand?
Therefore, we consider initially the dilemma faced by Britain, then we'll see the danger that the plan had by its ‘global interests'. Finally, we will conclude with a section on the need to channel this plan to have been too ambitious. In fact, Great Britain, which is a central European country because of its political and economic power and whose response was awaited for, has paradoxically never shown any real interest in issues relating to Europe.
Thus, no section of the Pan-Europe movement of Coudenhove-Kalergi had managed to settle in Britain in the 1920s, both countries (as well as its officers, intellectuals) were impervious to the idea of a European Union. According to Ralph White, "There was no idea of a European Union being contemplated by the British Government before it was contemplated by the French in 1929". He even says that, "The idea of a European Union meant little or nothing to official British minds."
This attitude of indifference to Europe was partly historical: We remember it because of the word ‘semi-detached' used by Chamberlain, Prime Minister in the 1920s to describe the relationship between Great Britain and Europe. On the other hand, it also reflected a political point of view: As a political, military and economic power, Britain did not fear competition. Britain had no interest in participating for a European Union, especially as it relied primarily on its Commonwealth.
So why Britain did not feel directly affected by the plan of Briand? Thus, according to Alexander WA Leeper (member of the Foreign Office who was charged with the first draft of the British response, then replaced by Smith), " The proposals in the first place concerned continental Europe more directly and fully than they did to Britain." He even had said that if Germany and Italy agreed, there was no reason that Great Britain should agree otherwise. The British government decided to let other European governments speak first.
Tags: Federal link¸ Great Britain, European governments, Foreign Office, Henderson, Aristide Briand, Treaty of Locarno
[...] It is indeed in the minds of the British that all the problems that propose to settle the Briand plan (obstacles to peace, economic crisis, etc.) can quite find a solution within the League. We can therefore say that Great Britain is more an Internationalist than an Europeanist. This vision was influenced by many British politicians, including Eric Drummond, who was secretary general of the League, but also and especially Arthur Salter, a British expert at the head of the Economic Section of the League. [...]
[...] In conclusion, we can say that the Briand plan was considered as the first major attempt by the European Union. This idea, the new era, although it was well received by Great Britain in the principles and objectives set, the means proposed were not considered satisfactory: the plan was considered a threat to Peace, a project detrimental to international diplomatic relations and the proper functioning of the League. However, exogenous events were also responsible for the failure of Briand, such as the economic crisis of 1929 that made the politics of the absurd plan, while states sought to resolve their economic problems individually. [...]
[...] Worse, some Britons interpreted the plan as a wish of France, a great power in decline, to reassert its supremacy over Europe. Boyce, moreover, noted that ‘most members of the Foreign Office merely regarded that it had more subtle manifestation of the French desire for hegemony standing on the continent". It was for these reasons that on the proposal of Henderson, at the 11th meeting (September 1930), a ‘Commission of Study for the European Union' was created within the League with Briand as the Head. [...]
[...] Briand would be against a plan for peace (as presented by the French foreign minister). That's why their answer was more nuanced, based on a policy of a ‘friendly bond'. In fact, one could read the official response phrases such as principles of the friendly co-operation of European States to promote their common interest should be welcomed' or ‘closer cooperation between the nations of Europe is urgent and desirable'. R. White explained the reason for this ambiguity as well: Government did not wish to be lacking in sympathy and support for the Schema'. [...]
[...] In addition, the United States had quickly expressed support for this plan because it could lead to an era of prosperity in Europe which would be welcome to the entire world. Nevertheless, the fears of Britain also concerned the exclusion of other states, such as the USSR. So it wanted membership of the Soviet Union and the British League in the European Union as it did not in any way want to feel threatened. However, for Briand, it was clear that its inclusion in the project was not an option for fear of the Soviet ideology from spreading. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
