7-rm COUNCIL OF EUROPE — — CONSEIL DE L' EUROPE Strasbourg, 1st February, 1953- Restricted • AS/AG (ij.) 14.5 PART ONE Unrevised CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY % COMMITTEE ON GENERAL AFFAIRS 'Fifth Session REPORT ON THE FUTURE POSITION OF THE SAAR PART ONE SOME HISTORICAL, LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ' ASPECTS OF THE SAAR PROBLEM 1 submitted by M. van der Goes van Naters, Rapporteur. • i linn inn inn inn mi HIM in K.-\ ' PACECOM004307 i A. 11378 . COPY NO. i. AS/AG (4) 45 PART ONE TABLE OP CONTENTS PART ONE SOME HISTORICAL, LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SAAR PROBLEM A. HISTORICAL ASPECT Page I. Introduction 2 * II. From the Celtic Period until 1552. 5 III. Henry II and the conquest of the Three Bishoprics. 11 IV. Louis XIV s Rhine Policy. 13 V. The Saar during the 18th Century. 17 VI. The Revolution and the First Empire in the Saar. The Treaties of I8l4 and 1815- 19 VII. The Saar 1815-1918. 28 VIII. The Saar settlement at Versailles. 32 IX. The International Regime and the Plebiscite. 39 # X. The Saar 1935-19^5- 53 XI. Post-war developments 19^5-1952. 57 XII. The elections of 19^7 and 1952. 65 Maps showing! * 1. The Franco-German frontiers in the area of the Saar in 1790, I8l4 and 1815. 27 2. The Saar frontiers, 1920-1952. 5& AS/AG (4M5 11. PART ONE B. LEGAL ASPECT (A) Legal Aspects of the International Regime in the Saar Basin. 1920-1955 I. Institution of the International Regime 68 (1) Cession of the mines to France. 68 * (2) Institution of a special political system. 69 (3) The provisions for the plebiscite. 70 II. Analysis of the legal system as established under the Versailles Treaty. 72 (1) Legal status of the Saar basin. 72 (2) The Governing Commission. 72 (3) Local autonomy. 7^ (*0 The judicial system. 77 (5) Saar citizenship. 78 flN (6) International personality of the Saar Basin. 79 V (B) The position in Law of the Saar since 19^3 I. Analysis of the present Saar Statute. 8l (1) Legal basis of the Statute. 8l (2) Legal implications of the Statute. 81j. (3) Contents of the Statute. 81| ill. AS/AG (ij.) 14.5 PART ONE. Le II, Implementation of the Saar Statute. 87 (1) The Franco-Saar Conventions. 87 (2) Implementation of the Statute and the Conventions. 95 (3) Evolution of the system. 95 (if) Evolution of the international ft position of the Saar. 97 (5) Text of letter sent by M. Schuman to M. Hoffmann concerning the modification of the Pranco-Saar Conventions. 100 III. The Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the Saar. 102 IV. The international personality of the Saar. 103 » ; J iv A,?V;.C (- 0 -5 - PART ONE C. ECONOMIC ASPECT I. Main periods in the economic history of the Saar during the last hundred years. 106 II. General Survey 108 A. The territory and the people. 108 B. Economic structure. Ill ft C. Present trade position. llij. III. Coalmining Il8 ^ A. The Coal basin. 118 B. Quality of Saar coal. Il8 C. Ownership. 119 D. The Warndt coal field. 119 E. Development of production. 120 F. Production within the E.C.S.C. 121 G. Output per man-shift. 121 fl^ H. Manpower. 122 ^/ I. Investments. 12J J. Markets. 121^. "^ K. Technical development - the problem of coking - • coal. 126 IV. Iron and Steel 129 A. Raw materials. 129 B. Interlocking relations between the industrial 131 regions C. Ownership. 132 •> D. Development of production. 133 E. Production within the E.C.S.C. 13^4- F. Investments. 135 G. Markets. 135 v. AS/AG (4) !|5 PART Qm .¥••. transport ffeoblems VIv-Akriculture ll).6 A. General conditions, llj.6 B. Degree of self-sufficiency. lJ+7 C. Origin of food imports. 1J+9 VII. Trade and Monetary Problems under the :r International Regime 150 % A. Trade development - special customs ,-v agreements. 150 IP B, The introduction of the French franc. 155 VIII. Problems arising from the re"totgyration with the German Economy after l^y 157 IX.. The Franco-ffaar Economic Union 1&^ A. Data .concerning the implementation of the economic "attachment" of the Saar to Prance and of the Franco-Saar Economic Union. l6j ^i, B. French interest in economic union with fP' the Saar. 168 ^J C. The significance of territories added to the Saar since 19^6. 169 ^ D. General economic development in the Saar J^ within the Franco-Saar Economic Union. 173 •-> .E. Foreign trade problems. 176 F. Investments. 178 X* Conclusion .A-. The effects of changing regimes. 182 1 B. The --Saar as part of France and as part of Germany. 183 C. Saar trade with France and Germany. l81j. D. RjifOspeets for the Saar within the BtJtjfqpean Coal and Steel Community. 186 AS/AG (4) 45 PART ONE Unrevised % A HISTORICAL ASPECT I «• A--11- 378 - 2 - AS/AG (4) 45 PART ONE I. INTRODUCTION 1..- General remarks concerning the validity of this study The most widely accepted view of the Saar to-day is that it is, both historically and -ethnically, "ein deutsches Land". Thus M..Bidault stated in the French National Assembly in 1'947 ^ "The 800,000 Saarlanders are Germans. We are quite clear abour this" (l).- This fact, however, is held to leave unprejudiced the need for special arrangements in view of Prance's legiti- mate economic and security interests. More recently it has bee:i held to be subordinate to the overriding claims of a European % solution of the problem which will prevent it further hindering the construction of a United Europe.. —. ffi ' If the historian is faced with a general consensus of ,• • ^ opinion concerning the nature of the Saar, but one which agrees notwithstanding that some special solution satisfactory to both parties must be found, then it is certainly no part of his function to increase the area of disagreement by reviving lang- resolved.controversies. But it would be historically untrue to accept the bald statement that the Saar is historic German territory, without making many reservations. These reservation- are 'now made: but it is not intended 'thereby that they should serve as a basis for further controversy or partial quotation. A yet more important caveat must be entered concerning the "lessons" to be drawn by either side from this historical surve,. The conclusion reached in this study is that the Saar problem i only an instance of the problem of the "Middle Kingdom dispute' ^) since the death of Lothar; that the historic Germanic claim outweighs that of Prance, but that the French claim to-influence in the Saar also has some historic validity; and that in consequence the only lesson that can be drawn from the history of the Saar is "thair'no absolute lesson can be drawn. Indeed, the historian mus^t go further and say that in this~problem no valid "appeal to history" can be made at all. By implication, the interested parties can negotiate to-day only on the basis of what each regards as the minimum terms dictated by present circumstances. The only lesson that can be drawn from £he (1) • cf. M. Abel Verdier's "Memorandum on France and the Saar", Part II. p. (Paris, 1947). "The Saarlanders 'are Germanic by race, language and custom*. -Quoted in the Journal of Modern History, University of Chicago, Dec. 1951..IP-;. 369. AS/AG (4) 45 - 3 - PART ONE history of the Saar is that in formulating these minimum terms, neither side would be justified in placing great reliance on their historical claims.. For .these claims speak with an uncertain soumd. 2... Difficulties of source material Some German Writers have claimed that as the "Saar problem" dates only from 1919, a history thereof before that date cannot be written. This is to beg the question. A history of the Saar problem in the light of the Versailles ,,^B Treaty can obviously be written only for the period since ^F 1920. , But "sub specie aeternitatis" the question cannot be divorced from the age-old dispute over the Rhine frontier. Of this dispute it provides a classic example. This means, however, that any study of the problem at once enters the realm of acute historical controversy. French historians regard their country as the lineal successor of Rome, holding the "limes" against the barbarian hordes. Fankish Austrasia is considered to have been "la France rh^nane romanise'e" (l), and the imprescriptible claims of France are held to extend to the whole of the "regnum Francorum" of Clovis, "fondateur de la monarchic franchise." German historians on the othee.hand regard German national state of the 19th and 20th Centuries as the heir of the Holy Roman Empire, and therefore of the same Lotharingian territory. A recent German writer, Martin Steinbach, has completely reversed the French accusation of continued German aggression. He illustrates his thesis with a series of maps, beginning, with the small area controlled by the French Kings in the "lie de France", and then showing how successive French Kings gradually "extended their grasp till it reached the I Rhine" (2). Two further difficulties must be mentioned: d^-« (l) The incorrigible tendency of seeking to read back ^* national claims into periods when such concepts were unknown. Nationalism in the modern sense did not exist until after 1789. The fact destroys the relevance both of the Holy Roman Empire and of the territory held by the Prankish Kings,.- It.is. not to be expected that this view will be accepted ' * (1) Babelon. "Le Rhin.dans 1'histoire", Vol.II, Introduction. p.