For Denis Duez, the entry into force of the Maastricht treaty really is a major step in the history of the European integration, only comparable to the signature of the Treaties of Rome in 1957.

Maastricht is the transition from an Economic Commuity to a “Union”, denomination which marks an explicit politization of the European project, which had been discarded at the outset in favour of a “small steps” method.

It is also the idea of a Union which now finds itself at the service of European citizens, thanks to the creation of a citizenship adding itself to the national ones.

Finally, the year 1993 is also the setting up of a European area in which the four major freedoms of movement are implemented (goods, services, capitals, persons)

By making the distinguish between “three pillars” – next to the single market there is now cooperation between the Member-states in the field of external policy and security, as well as police and legal cooperation – we are changing the very nature of the European project.

We change the very nature of the European project, and we do so in a fully mutating geopolitical context. The Maastricht Treaty intervenes quite fast after the end of the Cold War – the fall of the Berlin wall and dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 – but this new peace is quicky challenged by the tearing-apart of Yugoslavia.

According to Denis Duez, it is precisely the third pillar, the one about the domestic security of the Union, that allowed the Europeans to find the smaller common denominator around which we can start discussing beyond economic integration. The question of the Union borders quickly appears to be a major issue, because what is a political body if not a community surrounded by borders ? There is therefore a shift from the issue of peace to the issue of security.

Concerning the foreign policy, long considered as the poor relation of the policies launched by Maastricht, we must recognize that the Treaty did play a “pivotal” role in this field, considering that the European Union recognized itself as a legitimate player on the international scene.

From the very beginning, Corine Defrance wanted to recall that we certainly celebrated a lot the 60th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty, and with good reason, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that this January 22, we also celebrated the 4th anniversary of the Aix-La-Chapelle Treaty, this “Elysée 2.0” wished for by Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel.

In Aix, in 2019, the objective was not to replace the Elysée Treaty – you do not touch such a positive and symbolic memory place – but to update it, to adapt it to the XXIst century. This being said, if the Aix Treaty does include contemporary issues such as the digital and the fight against global warming, it finds itself, only four years later, already outdated by the new challenge of the Russian agression in Ukraine which put the peace question back at the forefront.

Can we learn from 1963 for a continent back at war in 2023 ?

According to Corine Defrance, it is always uselful to think about what worked in the past and what failed.What we must avoid, on the other hand, is to set the successful Franco-German experience up in a model for the others. The last decades showed that applying the franco-german methods to the world is probably not the right thing to do. As an example, the declaration during a Chirac-Schröder summit in Mayence in 2000, stating the “franco-german reconciliation as a model for the Balkans” scandalized. It is true that the situation is never the same between former belligerents, the context is specific, and the type of war determines the outcomes of the war, rapprochement and reconciliation.

This being said, third part countries sometimes take some inspiration from the “franco-german toolbox”, to adapt it to their context. We also saw some initiatives emerge, such as the creation of a youth office in Occidental Balkans, on the model of the OFAJ, one of the most emblematic outcomes of the Elysée Treaty, or the common revision of scholar books. It is undoubtly among  tools for education to peace that the most concrete heritage of 1963 can be found.

To conclude, Corine Defrance looked back at the Aix-la Chapelle Treaty, pointing out that one of the greatest merits was the firm commitment to place cooperation and franco-german friendship in a European perspective, to make sure the accumulated experience is at the service of the European integration – an openness at odds with the 1963 philosophy.

In the third speech of the evening, Sarah Cassella identified the role played by international law, admittedly violated by the Russian agression, in this armed conflict since the beginning of the war. In fact, there is  according to her, a truly harsh competition between the nations involved to defend highly discording points of view on what is (or should be) international law.

From the start, Russian president has developped a hole and certainly deluding argumentation, however funded on two ideas based on international law. Meaning that there would be, on one hand, an ongoing genocide happening in Ukraine that Russia was to stop, and on the other hand, a call for help from the newly created Republics in Donbass to which Russia had to answer. These are thus, legal arguments formulated in an objective of justification.

On the Ukrainian side, the right to self-defence was mobilized, while refering to all international jurisdictions in capacity to intervene, starting with the International Court of Justice. The interest of law also relies in taking into consideration the long term. Of course, in the midst of battles, law is quite inaudible at first, but the debate goes on and the idea is to delete the Russian argumentation.

It is also about avoing precedents : by declaring “illegal” the Russian agression, we avoid rules to be modified while defending the principles of international law. The Ukrainian war shed light on the polarization of the international scene, a legal battle that allows to talk about a “war through law”.

Another legal initiative, led by Ukraine with high responsiveness, is the judgement of crimes committed by Russia, whether they are war crimes or crimes against humanity. To do so, Ukraine rapidly refered to the International Penal Court for enquiries to be requested while launching thousands of enquiries itself, in order to gather evidences during the fights.

To closure the discussion, Sarah Cassella acknowledges that there was a real shock last year, as it is the first time since 1945 that we witness an agression purely and simply aiming at the annexation of a state on the European territory. It was unthinkable and it forces everyone to take position : we can’t stay neutral because there is an opposition of views and, for the first time since 1945, the will for a few states to modify what we call international law nowadays. We are at a turning point and the United Nations will never be able to function (or not) like they used to.

This year 2023 marks the 60th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty, known as well as the franco-german treaty, that endorses the close relationship between France and Germany in diplomatic, defence and education cooperation.

Signed by Général de Gaulle and Chancellor Adenauer on February 22, 1963, it was intended to assert a policy detached from the logic of the blocs in the midst of the Cold War, in a precursory move towards European independence.

On this occasion, Albrecht Sonntag, professor of European studies at ESSCA, analyzes, in 3 articles, the process of civil reconciliation that prefigured, even before politics, the famous franco-german friendship.

The year 2023 marks the 60th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty blessing the franco-german cooperation.

On this occasion, Henning FAUSER and Ruth LAMBERTZ-POLLAN are organizing, on June 22 and 23, the symposium on ” The franco-german diamond wedding anniversary in 2023 : between idealization and desillusionment. The collaboration’s evolutions and its representations.”

This symposium aims at taking stock of the franco-german relations for the 60th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty’s ratification and the creation of  the OFAJ. It proposes to study different fields of the franco-german cooperation in order to nuance the current media discourse which postulates a “crisis” in the franco-german relations.

Find all the information and the program on the University website

The international football calendar keeps getting denser, which reduces considerably the number of out-competition encounters traditionnally called ‘friendly matches”. This evolution is welcolmed by those who think that “friendly matches serve no purpose” because of their lack of sportive stakes.

It is a mistake, because these matches are first and foremost encounters, and if many of them are harmless, they are still symbolic. Playing with the other is an act of exchange, share and confidence. It is the affirmation of equality before common rules without which the game would be meaningless. And in the case of football, so often compared to a “war simulacrum” and whose vocabulary is still riddled with warlike expressions, it is also a profession of peace.

Germany is about to play the thousandth game in its history. That is significant. In Europe, only England did better (1043) but it started 26 years before, in 1872, with the first “international” encounter against Scotland.

When Germany got a national selection, in 1908, it was still a Prussian empire (which by the way explains the black and white colors on its shirt). Since then, its team has been, more often than not, overloaded with symbolic significance. Not only in the numerous international competitions where it has done pretty well, but also in some “friendly matches”, organized explicitely under the sign of peace.

Three of them request a closer look.

Craving for recognition

The first one is the 199th game. It took place on November 22, 1950. Switzerland is the first one to agree to play a “friendly match” in a country banished from international football for many years, excluded from the first Football Wolrd Cup of the post-war period. The weather in Stuttgart is awful; but in the arena conceived to receive 60,000 spectators – and which, a fiew years before was still named “Adolf Hitler Stadium” – are squeezing in 110,000 people, up to the sideline all around the field.

From a security point of view, it’s completely irresponsible to start the game, but the collective thirst for this symbolic recognition of reintegration into the international community is too strong. As if the birth of a new Republic, a year before, was finally followed by its baptism.

Need for relaxation

Five years later, the 230th game takes place in the middle of summer, on August 21, 1955.

Everything has changed : the federal Republic is not only about to achieve its “economic miracle” of the post-war period, but its team even won, to everyone’s surprise, the 1954 World Cup in Switzerland. The Cold War pushed NATO to implement the adhesion of West Germany, and consequently, to enable it to start rearming as soon as May, 1955.

There is still a real question : what will become the 15,000 war prisonners, soldiers and civilians, that are still held in labor camps in the Soviet Union, in conditions that are “problematic” to say the least?

The chancelor Konrad Adenauer is about to go to the Kremlin to ask for their release. And it is there, just before his travel, that football takes the field, with a friendly match of the world champions in Moscow. How will react the Russian spectators ? Well, they end up giving a warm welcome to the two selections as they enter the field, presenting them with bouquets of flowers.

Match USSR – West Germany, 1955

There was no incident to deplore – quite the contrary. The Kremlin and the Chancellery are reassured, the visit will happen and the negotiations will succeed. Between October and January, all prisonners are able to come home.

Boulganine, Adenauer and Khrushchev, 1955

Affirmation of solidarity

The 1,000th game took place on June 12, in Bremen. To mark this special occasion in a 115-year history,  punctuated by events engraved in the popular collective memory, the German federation had the elegance to invite Ukraine, a country whose one milion citizens are currently living in Germany. This choice was made, according to its president Bernd Neuendorfr “in order to send a clear signal in favor of peace and understanding between peoples and against war”.

A few days ago, I stumbled on Andriy Chevtchenko, the Ukrainian football legend, 2004 Golden Ball, on a visit in Paris. To my question about what he was thinking of this event, he answered that “it doesn’t matter if it is the 1000th game or the 990th, what counts in our situation is that the proceeds will be donated to social and humanitarian associations operating in Ukraine”.

He is not entirely wrong : the organisation of a football game, as symbolic as it might be, doesn’t win an armed conflict against a powerful agressor. In the meantime, this invitation to a “friendly” encounter not lacking in prestige or solemnity, makes accessible a solidarity commitment that is indispensable for the nation to which it is addressed.

This goes to show that friendly matches, after all, can serve a purpose after all.

Invited by L’Espace Cosmopolis, UNIPAIX participated in a discussion about the European Union’s reaction to the agression of Ukraine, in Valérie Drezet-Humez‘s company, head of the European Commisson’s representation in France, and hosted by Michel Catala on May 3, 2023.

Albrecht Sonntag, asked to address more precisely the changing attitudes in German society, “nurtured for decades on pacifism and currently facing a difficult weaning”, commented the event in his weekly editorial on Euradio. He was notably struck by the use, both by Ms. Drezet-Humez and by the audience during the lively debate that followed the speeches, of the term “enemies”, in the plural, when referring to Europe’s situation in a changing world.

You can either read or listen to his views on Euradio

The discussion will include :

• Natalie Nougayrède, journalist and member of the editorial board, The Guardian, London (who will also give the opening speech)
• Sylvie Hamard, Artistic Director of the Franco-German “Perspectives” festival, Saarbrücken/Versailles

Michel Catala, head of the Alliance Europa Institute for European and Global Studies, will conclude the event.

Event realized within the framework of the central theme of the Genshagen Fundation for 2020 and 2021 : Building cohesion – neighborhood in Europe .

The fundation wishes to adress the “neighborhood” question as a competence in Europe. It will consist in questionning how this competence can be reinforced, what are the ways to encourage the links between neighbors (be they indivduals, communities or States) and how to develop durably the cohesion within the European societies, and between them. The Genshagen Fundation takes a broad view of the “neighborhood”, encompassing the social level, regional issues, the importance of the neighborhood for the European Union, as well as the large field of globalization.

This event is supported by the Franco-german citizen fund.

https://www.fondscitoyen.eu/

Day organized by Louisa Guy, PhD student at 3L.AM (Le Mans University). Louisa Guy benefits from a scholarship from Alliance Europa Institute for European and global studies for her thesis “Area of contradiction ? French and German foreign policies in their engagment for peace”.

Wednesday June 29, 2.00-5.00 P.M

PROGRAM

2.00 PM General intrdoduction (Louisa Guy, PhD student, 3 L.AM)

2.25 PM Writing about oneself at a war time and at a peace time : France and germany over centuries (Anne Baillot, university teacher, specialised in germanic studies, 3 L.AM and ICAR – CNRS – Lyon ENS)

2.55 PM Presentation of the Peace Institute (Thomas Hippler, Professor of Contemporary History at the University of Caen Normandy)

3.15 PM Break

3.35 PM Keynote : research on peace in the franco-german context (Thomas Hippler)

4.15 PM Debate/Questions

4.30 PM Summary of the day and perspectives (Albrecht Sonntag, sociologist, professor in European studies at the EU-ASIA Institute Managment School)

5.00 PM End