A fusion of interests in the Spratlys

In a recent column on the daunting challenges of the Spratly issue I wrote that it would be helpful if we looked at other models for solutions. One of them is the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) that then gave rise to the EU (European Union). It was the vision of the Frenchman Jean Monnet. 

While it is good for China and other claimants, including the Philippines, to continue with their peaceful dialogue this will not be enough. The danger with “peaceful” dialogue is that if it fails, then its opposite  war  becomes the alternative course.

Some of my facebook friends have already asked what is the point of talking about war and peace among smaller nations? It is the powerful nations, ie the United States and China, that will decide what happens to the dispute on the Spratly (Nansha, to the Chinese) islands anyway.

It was precisely because all attempts at peace by mere dialogue of nations of Europe that Jean Monnet thought of an original way to deal with it.

*      *      *

Monnet himself said that what they did in Europe was “a departure from an ordinary perspective of nations at war.”

He said, “the Schuman proposals (which were based on his ideas) are revolutionary or they are nothing.”

He explains why:

“The indispensable first principle of these proposals is the abnegation of sovereignty in a limited but decisive field. A plan that is not based on this principle can make no useful contribution to the solution of the major problems which undermine our existence.

Cooperation between nations, while essential, cannot alone meet our problem. What must be sought is a fusion of the interests of the European peoples and not merely another effort to maintain the equilibrium of those interests.”

So wiser, perhaps older leaders of Asia can get together and think in this direction. Asia’s territorial problems may have a different context from Europe’s but the issue is the same  how do we solve them? Will it be by peace or by war? That is the dilemma.

There are many potential Jean Monnets among us, Asians. But we need to get out of mindsets and knee jerk reactions. We have to invent an Asian solution for Asian peace. It may take longer to come up with muscle and bones, but we can create a body to immediately change hardening attitudes towards the problem.

In Jean Monnet’s revolutionary formula, that body was a Higher Authority to which the different claimants would subsume (albeit limited) their national interests.

There are statements being made by Philippine officials that we should use the Asean and the UN to help solve the problem. But the Asean does not carry that authority and neither does the UN.

If we can create an Asian (not merely Asean) body that can carry the authority, then we may be closer to a peaceful dialogue instead of going to war. Lucky for Europe that they had a Jean Monnet who was so obsessed with this unifying principle that he looked at every angle, every aspect that should be confronted before creating this suprabody or higher authority. He just wanted it done. I can imagine the fireworks during negotiations in Paris when it was proposed. But despite the difficulties all the parties found they could agree on Monnet’s solution.

Now back to the Spratlys and other claimants. Instead of issuing inflammatory statements, cooler heads should prevail. Perhaps some back channeling should be stepped up and eventually lead to a formal conference among Asian leaders.

The appointment of country representatives would be crucial. They have to be dedicated men and women with a vision of a united Asia committed to the Asian Century. They would be concerned with both the particular interests of the claimants and wider concerns in the region as a whole. That is easier said than done but it must be attempted. Once the disputants are put on track to find a common Asian solution, recourse to the UN or help from any outside interest will be unnecessary. China is best equipped to lead a movement towards this track.

These representatives, like the Europeans before them, must work out “a totally new  and lasting  legal and political system” to support a system for cooperation.

*      *      *

The preamble of the ECSC Treaty encompasses the philosophy that led to contemporary Europe:

‘Considering that world peace can be safeguarded only by creative efforts commensurate with the dangers that threaten it; convinced that the contribution which an organised and vital Europe can make to civilisation is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations; recognising that Europe can be built only through practical achievements which will first of all create real solidarity, and through the establishment of common bases for economic development; anxious to help, by expanding their basic production, to raise the standard of living and further the works of peace; resolved to substitute for age-old rivalries the merging of their essential interests; to create, by establishing an economic community, the basis for a broader and deeper community among peoples long divided by bloody conflicts; and to lay the foundations for institutions which will give direction to a destiny henceforward shared’.

‘World peace’, ‘practical achievements’, ‘real solidarity’, ‘merging of essential interests’, ‘community’, ‘destiny henceforward shared’: these are all key words which are the embryonic form of both the spirit and the Community method and still today retain their rallying potential.”

*      *      *

At the time the objective of the ECSC Treaty was to manage the coal and steel market in Europe. That objective for the European economy of the 1950s may no longer be as important but the institutional principles it laid down are.

They started a momentum of ideas and principles that can be used for contemporary problems. To Europeans it fueled a political vision that must be constantly nurtured. They concluded “we must be careful not to depart from that vision if we are not to call into question our precious ‘acquis communautaire’. It is the comprehensive term for preparations by candidate countries to join the Union.

 That is an approach that could be used in Asia as well but we need bold thinking men like Jean Monnet and there are Asians equal to the task. They will have to come out of the shadows and assert their leadership. Jean Monnet was acting more as a man concerned with peace rather than as a government official of France.