thumbnail of Couchiching conference; Europe and the modern world
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
Europe in the modern world the seventh and final section of the thirty first coaching conference the Canadian Institute on public affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation prepare the conference annually and this year the new Europe has been the subject for discussion. James there as well chaired tonight's meeting and the participants will be professor at all William Clarke and Harry Wilson. Mr Ayres is associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto and will introduce our speakers on the subject in more detail. Here he has not be a. Little Gentleman our final say. The coaching conference is to be on Europe and the modern world. And here we have a subject so sweeping that it could mean nothing or it could mean everything. Our panel certainly wants it to mean something and so its members are going to address themselves specifically to two kinds of problems.
Europe's place in a world where few peoples are rich and most are poor and don't seem to be getting much richer and Europe's place in a world where everyone is threatened to some degree by the possible use and indeed the very existence of nuclear weapons. Our problem then is peace. We were treated yesterday evening to a show of dialectics from this platform about the meaning of peace whether peace is the same thing as peaceful coexistence. Some of us were left a little confused by this dialogue though of course said coaching if you are left confused you were always left it confused at a higher level from where you started. Ours is a very considerate panel indeed whose members don't want anybody to be confused on any level of talk. And so when they talk about what the new Europe might do to bring about
a peaceful world I am confident that they will mean a world which is peaceful not only in the sense of there being no organized killing going on where there is no longer the deliberate destruction of human beings to serve the interests of nations and the whims of rulers they will of course mean that but they will also mean I'm sure a world where the great majority of its men and women are able through their own choice to live lives which are distinguished by purpose and dignity and truth. Two of our three speakers this evening have become I'm certain well-known to our listeners as to our conference here not by their international reputations only but by their forceful and frequent and welcome contributions to our sessions throughout the week. Mr. William Clark is the distinguished British journalist and
commentator who is the director of the recently created Overseas Development Institute in London. Well there is much I could say about Mr. Sharon but at this stage of our proceedings I want only to repeat what was said of him said ALL him from the floor last night that he is the true European intellectual of our time. Our third speaker is not so far appeared on the platform. He is Mr. Harry Wilson of Toronto. Mr. Wilson is a financial and economic consultant. And it will be his job to give us the Canadian view of these matters I should of course have said a Canadian view because Mr. Wilson Mr. Wilson does not speak for the Canadian government which I personally feel is rather a pity. We will hear first.
Mr. Romney and then from Mr. Cook and then from Mr. Wells and I hope that they may find after each has spoken something that has provoked them to debate and then after the panel has had a chance to settle its own scores we shall invite your participation and your questions. Ladies and gentlemen Professor Renmark Iraq. Mr. Chairman ladies and gentleman I listened this morning with great interest and pleasure to the speech of what was their ally and I think it was quite proper that we should have been reminded of the great wall played by those so-called good Europeans in the launching of the movement towards European unification. It's perfectly tools ideas to people like you nominate
on the gas bill now all the people of the intimidatory region of Europe. Where's the driving spirit behind the whole movement. They have the vision of a new yob. Better more peaceful that the old one. They wanted to give the example. Of a large community. I ducked it was a necessity of the twentieth century and at the same time retaining all the Viet you of diversity of the whole nation. I would see a nation without nationalism large scale without confusion. And just how much anything but the good you have opinions which are today is still an important part of the movement toward European unification are no more in power in France. The people who are now in France doing the Common Market belongs to it not the group which certainly Professor Lyon would
not call the group of the good Europeans because they were certainly hostile to many forms of European unification especially to the European community of defense. But even these are good Europeans had to make some concessions to the necessity of the movement because to this a great majority of the good Europeans are in favor of accepting Great Britain into the common market in Great Britain or the present it is of Great Britain had said many times that they join the common market but that they don't enjoy the political situation of Europe. They don't want the United States of Europe. So let us see that the movement of our GOP in unification is a political movement which had a driving force. The dream of the United States of Europe. But that for the time being it's still an open question how far the movement will go towards If it
illusion of yours. But the movement being towards political unity. It is certainly proper that we should discuss this evening as a political of action to this political decision. To create a configuration of Western Europe and I will consider first the British political actions then the American one. So at least the reaction of the Soviet Union in the end the actions of the uncommitted were so first Britain. I believe that there has been three phases in the political attitude taken by Great Britain in relation to the European movement. The first attitude at the beginning of the 50s was I would see a polite approval without great anxiety and without great enthusiasm.
The British said it's all ours our Western Europe should work towards a close cooperation because our British friends. So in the movement before everything else. Corby relationally conciliation between Germany and France and specially Winston Churchill was convinced that the key to the future of Europe was reconciliation between France and Germany. This segment function is was not as peaceful as the first. That was a term after our own treaty was signed and when there was some indications that teach me work. At that time our British friends were much less satisfied and they was even very irritated talking about too is a common market being a repetition of the Napoleon's adventure. Or even worse of Hitler's adventure. I would not quote the British minister which did use these extreme formulation which was certainly not in his mind.
Then we have come to the surgeries now. But those are probably not specially pleased. That there should be a political unity of Western Europe. They would certainly prefer it as it should be illegal copulation between the different European states but that they should not be in the necessity of making a choice between Western Europe and the government which I don't which means that joining the common market means abandoning the Commonwealth but to the explosion of law Atlee if our British friends become partners inside the common market they may be more closely linked with the French with the JM even with the talons than with the Canadians and the Australians. And it means something for them and we fully understand that it is a painful choice but I believe that our
British friends have made or in any case some of them had made the choice. We have spoken very much about the economy reasons of the chores. I believe that a political reason is even stronger and a political reason as it was given to me many times when I was in lawn it quite simply this if we are not inside the common market they will be a political unity in Europe from which we will be excluded. And for us it is intolerable that the French the Germans the Italians the billions the Dutch should work out together their foreign policy and that we should know nothing about it. So I would say to summarize in a clear cut formula our British friends are convinced that it would be for them motile to let the Europeans create a political going for an iteration of a division. We don't have that.
If the world would be different an organisation not organisation would be possibly preferable for them. But the world being what it is namely is a common market. Giving every sign to work. I believe that the present British governess thinks that it is in the best British interest to be in it in the end they will join. Nobody knows for sure. I would repeat that I believe they will join not because everybody in Britain agrees but because the most important people are convinced that it is necessary. Let's come to the American attitude. Again I believe they has been two periods in the first one. The American Statesman we're all in favor of the Common Market of the political unification of euro. There we are convinced that it was necessary for the economic recovery of Europe and even
more on the political and moral recovery of the old continent. They were convinced that the best way to anchor western Germany inside the West and West to have a close cooperation between Germany and France and to have something a bit like a new political entity out of making friends in new forms of first DE that the common market will bring to them certain disadvantages on the level of trade. They knew that the Common Market implied some discrimination in relation to the outsiders but they were convinced that the political advantages would balance even most and balance the economy good advantages. Today I would say that the ease in Washington some dollars or so misgivings I will try to be
quite funky and to be as outspoken as I can. Not that the Kennedy's administration is no more in favor of the Common Market of the political unity of euro but is like you afraid of. Some turn taken by the foreign policy of France and possibly of western Germany. They are a little bit anxious that they should be inside as they need to alliance it Western grouping under the guidance of Germany and France. Which would not only try to be relatively autonomous in relation with the United States because I believe our American friends are fully in favor of Europe having a certain degree of autonomy but a grouping of Western Europe following in certain key matters a different line forms are neat o line and quite clearly these misgivings have something to do with
the push given by the American government to the effort of Britain to join the common market. Because in the views of Washington they would be a greater assurance that united Europe will be a good ally. According to the conception of Washington if Britain would be in and today I would say the American government favors the common market even more. The entry of Great Britain into the Common Market. If Britain would not join. I don't believe that the United State would become hostile to the United States of Europe but there would be some degree of doubts misgivings questions about the future. I personally believe that the talk about force which was current in the American press in the last months
is slightly exaggerated in tone but the American press is normally somewhere exaggerated in any judgment for or against books. To be quite to that is an element of the problem and I believe it would be wrong to say that the United States today is as fully behind the European unity as it was in the past. It may be that a United State government will be again for it fully for it if they would be in other government in Paris. But for the time being that is the situation as I see it. Now let's come to the third reaction. Namely is it the action of the Soviet Union. About which a question was put to me yesterday. Let me first begin by a very simple proposition. If the government market hands as probable result do reinforced Western Europe
why should Mr. could be in favor of it so that the Soviet Union does not like specially is a common market as a political unity of Europe is obvious because it's not the function of Mr. good chef to help us if you would be here. I'm sure he would agree with this proposition. So if somebody would tell me that the Soviet Union is against the movement towards political unification I would answer Of course. So the real question goes beyond that. To what degree is a Soviet Union against the political unification of Western Europe. To that I would say that yet there has been no clear signs that the Soviet Union is more against the political unification of Western Europe than it was against anything we did in the past. Name me say we are again the motion blur on. They will not go against the coal and steel community.
They are permanently again where they call our imperialism so if we just look at what they have said and to what their don't tell yet. I don't believe there is a serious season to be afraid of a violent reaction of the Soviet Union because there is no reason why they should be especially against it or more against it than Again anything of the same type. Then the question arises would they have solid causes to be a thread of the Common Market. All of the political unity of Europe. To this question I gave yesterday first answer which I would like to qualify and to make more precise. If we speak of fear. Of the political unity of your own in terms of military force I believe they have no reason to be afraid of the military potential of Western Europe
because the key weapons today are the atomic weapons the British have some atomic weapons of France will have sawn in a few years time but for the fifteen coming years they will remain an enormous discrepancy between the subject that isn't in any European detainment and I would go even farther. Even if Western Europe had a powerful deterrence. So the Soviet Union would still retain an enormous advantage because of its peace because of its capacity to suffer Western Europe has so limited it. Peace in so concentrated a population that the inferiority of Western Europe in relation to the Soviet Union would remain enormous even if they would be a big atomic weaponry in Western Europe which will not be the key at least for the next 15 years. But it is clear
that there is not only on the military level that there is a competition between the two blocs on the political level. I believe that the Soviet Union has every reason not to be afraid of the political situation of Western Europe but to dislike it intensely because on the political level on the level of ideological competition the idea of political unity is a living entity with a great force of attraction to Eastern Europe with a powerful attractive force in relation to the whole world. So if somebody would tell me. The Russian one much prefers that Western Europe should remain divided. I would say of course if you would tell me they are afraid of the ideological force of the ID of the unity of Western Europe I would say to a certain extent yes
but on the military level I don't think they have any reason to be afraid of integration. And I would repeat what I said yesterday that Germany inside a political situation of Western Europe would be less prone to adventurous would have not so great a possibility of new adventure if Germany would remain isolated and completely sovereign. So if the Soviet Union is only afraid of German version of imperialism I would say that the common market should also be a reassurance to Moscow that a source of anxiety. Now I come to my last point. What is the reaction of the uncommitted work. I don't want that it is possible to summarize the action if you will because I believe that the reactions are very different. According to the part of the world they are
certainly also out of misgivings in many places. But I believe best in the least for the time being. The action of the uncommitted world is mainly dictated by economic considerations and not by political one. I don't believe that India or Pakistan or the Middle East. Has if we are ready if the political unification of Europe is good or bad. India Pakistan and the Middle East. But they are clearly afraid of the politik of the economy. Implications of a close European community. They are afraid of the three dislocations about which we have spoken so much in the course of this conference. It may be in some part of the world this easy feeling on an easiness. It may be
that some people may see him as their new hero up a surgeons of a great power and it may be that they are sleds of a new great power because normally everybody is afraid of something new. Everybody has some doubt about the wig great power will act in a certain way it is inevitable and perhaps it's not so bad if Western Europe is again taken seriously. But I would say fundamentally the uncommitted went in was uncommitted in relation to the unification of Western Europe on the political level. Now the last word. We have spoken. They match the goals of this week about the political anxieties it did by the unification of Europe and on the whole they has been three types of arguments. The
first one which I used very much was deal yet the common market has been beneficial to all without being that we mental to anybody because everybody has profited from the great expansion of the European economy. That was a good argument but not so good because after all the common market has just began as a common agricultural policy is just in force for a few days and nobody can say that what did happen in the last three years is an example of what will happen in the coming years. The second argument one of the arguments of the people who are looking at their own case said but what will happen with Canadian aluminum. What will happen with Canadian wheat and so on and so on. These arguments are perfectly legitimate and it is also illegitimate that song people should have
felt that we did not examine seriously enough and that we were complacent about it. Normally human beings are complacent about the worries of the other fellow. But it's not a peculiarity of the Europeans I would say it's a feature of human nature. So there's a certain argument which was used in favor of the Common Market was to say on the whole Nobody knows what will happen. And in any case there will be a great expansion of played. So even if you lose it in the whole you will win because it will be greater a higher rate of expansion of the European economy which means if we played in a larger trick that is what we have said in one form and not of all during the week. Who is right. Excuse me. I don't believe that it is possible to give a clear cut answer
without the slightest doubt. The common market will bring with it certain changes in the pattern of cricket and they will be disadvantages here. For some countries. But I sincerely believe also that the people in US Western Europe will be reasonable as are they will they act in a reasonable way to the queries into the demands of their allies and beyond that. I would say now is a common market then it is a challenge. John's danger let us work together to make it a success for us but also for you. I mean for the whole Western world any med.. The whole what. Did. I.
Know Our next speaker ladies and gentlemen is Mr. William Clark. I know nothing that I enjoy more than listening to Mr. Errol. Nothing I dislike more than having to speak after him. I feel that I can be no more than a sort of footnote in Gibbon. After that remarkably an extraordinarily interesting in my opinion accurate account of the situation at the present moment. I'm going to talk in fact awful across Mr. Erroll not taking up points not saying how much I agree but speaking from my British point of view in slightly different terms of similar problems. I've been asked to talk about and the subject tonight really is in fact the impact of the European Common Market on the world today. Well let me begin by saying that if the European Common Market were a system for creating rather more boots shoes clothing washing machines refrigerator's and so on for the people of Europe
its impact on the world would be very slight indeed. It must be I think something more than that. But what is its relevance to the rille political issues of our time. And then I agree with the chairman and those who are wrong in identifying them but I will if I may just mention them again. The world today faces two dangers above all. There is the danger of a split between the communist world and the noncommunist world widening to the point at which we annihilate each other by nuclear warfare. That is one danger. The second danger which is a less pressing danger in a way is that we will fail to be a present growing gap between the rich nations and the poor are failed to Bridgette I would rather say so that the two halves of the world drift apart until it is impossible to build a stable world orda on a world so deeply divided into rich
nations and poor the chance of that exploding in our face is not of the same order as the danger of nuclear war. But in the long run it is the second great danger which the world faces. What impact is the common market going to have on either of these two great problems of Law time. And yeah I must say exactly in line with our last remarks. That of course the answer lies in the future. The decisions are not yet taken. We cannot be sure with the European common market is going to be a good or a bad thing because its policies and its actions are not yet decided. That indeed is why Great Britain today is getting into the Common Market. We are not getting in so late is staggering under the weight of our economic difficulties. We are not getting in so late because we feel it left outside. We would be poor. We are not getting in
so late because we feel that that is where the money is. We are getting in because we feel that the European common market is going to be a great force in the world for good or for ill. And we wish to take part in the decisions which will ensure that it is a force for good and I would like to say somewhat roughly that if in fact we are on the stake and if in fact the Common Market is something that cannot do good and is bound to do ill Well then what alternatives lie open for Britain. If that is to be an alternative within the Commonwealth There must be some sign within the Commonwealth obviates desire to create active palaces in the world of the same order as the active policies in trade and elsewhere. Of the European common market countries it's no good
saying and I've heard it too often recently that it's a great pity that we ever got to this state of things. And if we were going forward we wouldn't start from where we now are we where we now. Ah and it's never good time to flee wishing that we were 20 years back in a different world. The two problems I've said that are to be faced by any organization that is attempting to have an impact on the future of the world in which we live. The one is the problem of nuclear warfare. What is the impact of the Common Market likely to be on this problem of the split between the communist and the noncommunist world. It is our own said Bond. If it is a told successful to strengthen the West i.e. to make it economically sound a proposition for that reason. Those who don't favor the West are likely to criticize the
common market and that is something which we must expect and which we need not really worry about too much. The real question is not whether it makes the west mall less economically sound but whether in this question it makes it more or less likely that an accidental or intentional nuclear war will break out. First of all will it do so militarily. Will it in fact alter the balance of power in nature. I didn't think it will. This is not a statement of absolute fact it's a statement of expectation of policy. I don't think it will because I do not think that the 6 plus 1 the 7 will in fact have foreign policies that are more coordinated than they are today. I do not believe in fact that when Britain has entered the common market in the next 10 years in this
decade that foreign policies will be all that more coordinated than they were before. And therefore I do not see any great alteration in the balance of power in NATO's in so far as there is an alteration of the balance of power because Europe may become economically more powerful. I do not see that that is necessarily making wool more likely. It is not. I think myself more likely that it is not. I think myself likely that wool will come in fact from our side. I do not believe that Europe is more trigger happy than America. I do not believe that either is trigger happy. Will it make the common market for a wider spread of nuclear arms. Here again this is not certain. It depends on policies. And here I say that all of us who take some part in the politics of the world must play our part in
ensuring that it does not mean a wider distribution of nuclear arms. For myself and I'm not here in accord with the government of my own country I do not think that the spread of nuclear arms outside the two main powers America and Russia makes for greater security. I think it makes for less security. I would like to see less armament less nuclear armament in Europe not more. But the existence of the European Common Market is not going to alter that in any great way that I can see. That is a problem that is dealt with in other ways to other institutions suffering from other pressures. But finally in the matter of wall will it make a divided Germany more capable of dragging the rest of Europe and the North Atlantic Alliance behind it into a war for the reunification of Germany.
I agree with Mr out all in thinking that it will not because I think that particularly with the adhesion of Great Britain the likelihood is that there will be more brakes on Germany not less. I Secondly do not in fact think and I feel I ought to state this that the likelihood of Germany in fact starting a war to re-unite itself is very great. Their experience of war is at least as great as ours and it is at least as unpleasant. I do not believe that to be particularly likely. I do believe that it is a fella on the other side and I think that here again one of the important things will be the policy should be pursued primarily incidentally through organizations quite outside the European common market to try and ameliorate the word appease having been stolen by the devil to ameliorate the position in the
center of Europe. I would also add this as an un friendly remark about the future of the Common Market. One of the great difficulties that we must not forget is this that Russia does have one end of the fuse of a time bomb in her hands in all of this because the office of the reunification of Germany. If Germany were to become somehow more detached from the West remains in her position. That offer could be made that offer could I believe have a serious effect on the stability of the Common Market. But that does not mean as I see it that the common market is in any sense at all more likely to make for war. I would conclude on that point of the importance of the common market in its relationship to one great feature of the
political world as it exists today that the common market does not really have a profound influence on the nuclear balance of power and that to regard it as such is to start chasing not the wrong half. It's a very important Harr indeed. But chasing it in the wrong field. The second problem A is suggesting the world had to deal with is the problem of the relationship of the rich countries to the poor countries. That again what I maintain and have tried to do since the beginning is that the decisions for the European common market for the six plus one lie ahead. What is true and what is important today is that the common market should not appear to too much of the underdeveloped world to be other than it is and I fear and I think we are in disagreement. I felt very much that the English speaking parts of Africa and
to a large extent of Asia have got the impression that the European Common Market is in fact a union of consumers attempting to make bargains at the expense of producers of primary products. I do not believe that is necessarily true. I do not think it need be true at all. I do think that it is a very great importance indeed that it should be shown to be untrue by positive statements followed by action of the six and in particular of Britain when it joins the six in relationship to its own ex-colonies. The fact that so far as I can gather from this morning's papers it has now been agreed that the African country is independent British ex-British countries in Africa are free to join with associated overseas territories stators makes this all
the more important because if in fact we negotiated Nigeria and tangan e-card Sierra Leone and Ghana into the common market as a satiated overseas territories and they refused to enter this would be a very great Blair indeed to the future of the British Commonwealth in Africa which is one of the important stabilizing forces them. As I see it then the important thing is to make it clear that the object of the Common Market is not just to enrich ourselves nor just to enrich our own ex-colonies but to concert an attack on world poverty for reasons which are political to do with the cold war economic to do with World Trade moral to do with our own in our feelings about the existence of the world community because I do not believe that you can leave out any
of the US and speak of the whole thing in purely economic terms. We do not clothe the naked help our textile trade. We do not feed the hungry to get rid of our surpluses of grain. We do not heal the silk sick in order to help our pharmaceutical exports. We do these things because we feel that we are in some way in a relationship with the other parts of the world with which we were once in an imperial connection and which we are now regarding as countries that we are helping to bring forward. We are in a relation not a little bit was that we interfered with imperialism. But to the whole of the poorer section of the world we are beginning to become aware that we are citizens of one world. For that one world an increase of wealth in a united Europe would be a bit a great advantage if that wealth way used in
pot to helpful would an increase of wealth in the poorer parts of the world. If it is used purely for our own selfish internal purposes if in fact we are simply going to make the rich richer then in spite of all that is said I believe that eventually our productivity will choke us. Thanks. I. I third speaker ladies and gentlemen is Mr. Harry Wolfson. Mr. Chairman I would indeed feel myself redundant were it not for the fact that we in Canada have a particular problem. Perhaps it isn't so particular for others but certainly it is for us. As I hope to indicate in a little while. I do not claim to present the definitive Canadian point of view as you
have said Mr. Chairman for there is no such thing. But I as a Canadian who having spent some two decades abroad I am perhaps a little bit more sensitive to our position in the world than I would have been had I always lived here a more sheltered environment. The problems that we face are much graver than one would gather not only from our discussions here but from what one hears or fails to hear in the conversations of the man in the street the businessman or the politician. Even here we become at times so concerned with oats and barley pigs and pies and even textiles that we have failed to appreciate. The more watch more much more basic problems that beset us. Set us in Canada and if I would make one plea it would be for a frank and courageous facing of the issues by Canadians.
It is a sad but true commentary that with destress we like all people try our best to avoid facing issues but only if we can compel ourselves to face up to them before they hit us. Sharky can we hope to cope with them less painfully than they will otherwise prove to be. Now what is the issue before us. Modern technology and modern communications in X are oblique Four's the fusion of smaller units into larger operations. This applies in industry but it applies equally to nations. National economies and bodies politic are not accepted but we are still wedded to concepts that were valid for other conditions and we cling to them so tenaciously that they impede us
in our view of what is occurring around us. The union of Europe is proceeding apace. The Common Market is a fact. It's not important whether it's desirable. It is a reality and has all the earmarks of a success. And for those outside it must spell readjustment at the beginning such readjustment will deal with specific items particularly items of export. Eventually it may bring you some benefits when the Common Market will have led to an expanded economy in Europe and in the developing countries. We can perhaps hope to enjoy our share of the wider opportunities but for the time being there is nothing that we can do except to reconcile ourselves to the possibility of the future benefits. Certainly not the certainty. And there is this certainty that in some respects there is a strong
likelihood that some of our exports will shrink and that we shall have these readjustments at home not unlike those that we fellas for instance when the bottom dropped out of the uranium market when we had built a new industry in the anticipation of it assured supply for a new mineral to meet these demands and troubles we have a number of choices each with its own particular costs and pain. We might in the first place consider applying for membership in the European Common Market. But will they take us and how can we become members of a customs union when 70 percent of our trade is geared to the United States and is outside the area that is constituting the customs you. I do not want to dwell at length but if it be necessary in the subsequent discussion I
think we can prove quite conclusively that membership in the European Common Market as has been subjected as a suggested by some is not a feasible alternative. We could try it as a second possibility. A great measure of self-sufficiency. What acrobats Indeed we will have to be if we fall of the two metaphors of this morning you know trying to paddle our own canoe while putting our house in order I don't know. Has anyone really faced up to the real costs involved in pursuing a course of self-sufficiency to increase our domestic industry in certain instances is feasible and desirable but a wholesale embarkation of shifting from an export economy to local manufacture could only result in very drastic inroads on our standard of living. And this
unfortunately is the crux of our dilemma. We have developed a standard of living to thought of thirds as high as that of our neighbor. The United States but we've only done it by virtue of massive importation of the United States investments in Canada. And yet we decry them. We've achieved a very questionable success in the last two years of frightening away a goodly measure of these investments and yet as far as we can see linking our economy even closer to that of the United States is the only feasible choice that we have at present unless we are willing to accept and appreciate a lower standard of living. You make your bets you take your choice. You cannot have your cake and eat it as well. It's one or the other.
The dynamics of our labor movement and our concern with voters seems to be make it both highly unlikely that overt and deliberate policies will be pursued which would mean harder work or lower living standards. Seems to me therefore that there is only one alternative to valuation. Either devaluation will bring our living standards into line with our capacities or in an effort to avoid devaluation. We will have restrictive policies and unemployment and these will furnish the correctives Canadians can live at their present standard of living only if they work hard or produce more while not raising the standard of living or alternatively they get their American friends or others to subsidize them through capital imports or otherwise.
Now if that be the case it seems to me that if we choose closer association economically with the United States certain political consequences must follow political and cultural in nature. I shall not discuss the cultural but with a political certain things become clear. We must then of necessity remain strong partners in Natal. That is to say strong in spirit. We do not kid ourselves. We know that our contribution physically and financially is not a determinant but psychologically a more. Really it is. And there would have to therefore be a complete succession of this talk that we should withdraw from little commitments as a chorale Rita that we will have to maintain our undertakings in NORAD's And if we should
mean having bases for American atomic weapons it may be unpleasant maybe undesirable but I can see no alternative. It would be necessary. There is one thing that it seems to me we must bear in mind that we can choose between having the privilege of being free agents coming our noses at the world and paying the price in terms of a lower standard of living or we can do well in the fleshpots. But then let us recognize that we haven't the pleasure of doing the nose dummy. I would like to at this stage say just one thing more. Our European friends may have wondered about the preoccupation amongst
us and on this continent about the impact of the ECM on Eastern Europe. Perhaps concern with communism and concern about a hot war is greater here than in France or in Germany. Whether right or wrong you monsieur you live among communists they are your neighbors you are accustomed to see them daily. They are persons of a different political persuasion. But we see them as missionaries not like determination to impose their system upon us all. They may hesitate in their path temporarily temporarily maybe 10 15 years as a matter of tactics but we see in them an effort to would stablish a new philosophy a new bolt a vision a new regime in which we will lose that
which we think we treasure a way of life different than theirs. There are gradations of such fear even on this continent. We are not all of the same cup. Some are more proximate to your position. Some like the Birchers taken almost maniac of extreme and many of us are in between. But one thing it seems to me clear that you must recognize that the concern is not one other mental or moral aberration. It is one in which we claim to be willing to sacrifice in order to maintain a system that we cherish. And if then we do say that to you I come back and we I must say to ourselves. I'm not of this talking to others about these moral values if indeed we are men of virtue such as we
say we are and perhaps believe then let us create the circumstances of pursuing those virtues and the ability to do so and that freedom will cost us and may cost us much will betide us if we wait for cataclysmic depressions or for warfare to impose upon us the realizing that we are not God's chosen people destined to have all that we wish without having to bend the effort the sacrifice and the pain. I. I. I. I.
Ladies and gentlemen I have to report to you that as a consequence of a Serap Tisha six change of notes among the members of this panel resulting in a document of great historic importance which I shall treasure the panel has decided to forego the luxury of an interior debate among its own members and to proceed to your own questions and comments. My colleague Professor Tait in line. I should like to address this question to Professor. Sir could you tell us if the Common Market is a tech knock or say our democracy. Yes it is a pleasant phone do you have a card. So the civil servants the international civil servants who are working in the bustle. I blame you gay too because the European Commission is composed of people who almost did so
and then they are bullied men because they knew me needed by their government they are not elected. But for the time being was a big decisions. This is the final session of the thirty first conference. Considering the place of Europe in the modern world the saving word three speakers Professor Ramel at all William D Clarke and Harry L. Wilson a professor at on his director of studies at Lake in Paris. Mr Clarke is director of the Overseas Development Institute in London. Harry Wilson is a Toronto economic and business consultant. The chairman of this year's conference program tonight is the former editor and publisher of Saturday night Arnold Edinburgh. To conclude this broadcast from Geneva park here is Mr. Edinborough. Is there a new Europe that is the question which we've been discussing here a coup teaching conference for the past week. Monsieur Raymond I want France said that there is the Common Market proofs Mr. William D Clarke said Great Britain is determined to join Europe
and that proves it. Dr Vela between Yugoslavia and Herr Rudolf minder from Germany described the complete rebuilding of their war battered countries and each showed that crude. Even Mr Patterson from Sweden where I was in favor of gradual change as we are here in Canada showed that the massive changes in his country in the last 20 years proved to be just what the consequences will be and whether there will be maybe economic political social or cultural was a matter of debate. Indeed on the politics versus economics question of heated debate. All agreed on one point that the consequences for Canada will be real and serious. Everyone also agreed Canada should therefore make her mind up as to what these consequences will be as soon as possible and then take some action to counterbalance. We hope that you as well as the conference members have been stimulated to give these matters exactly such urgent consideration. If we have achieved this then the conference will indeed have been a success. Thank you Arnold Edinburgh. If you've been following this year's debate from coaching
Please note: This content is only available at GBH and the Library of Congress, either due to copyright restrictions or because this content has not yet been reviewed for copyright or privacy issues. For information about on location research, click here.
Couchiching conference
Europe and the modern world
Producing Organization
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-n29p6w3m).
Other Description
The 31st edition of an annual meeting held in Geneva Park, Ontario. Political matters are discussed, with an emphasis on how they relate to Canada. This edition focuses on "The New Europe."
Global Affairs
Public Affairs
Media type
Host: Wilson, Bob
Producing Organization: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Producing Organization: Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 62-ex2-7 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “Couchiching conference; Europe and the modern world,” 1962-08-03, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed August 9, 2022,
MLA: “Couchiching conference; Europe and the modern world.” 1962-08-03. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. August 9, 2022. <>.
APA: Couchiching conference; Europe and the modern world. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from