Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:11:32.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Western European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Get access

Extract

The second part of the second ordinary session of the Assembly of the Western European Union (WEU) was held in Strasbourg from October 11 to 13, 1956, under the chairmanship of Mr. J. S. Maclay (United Kingdom). Following examination of a report presented by its General Affairs Committee, the Assembly adopted three recommendations to the WEU Council, concerning, respectively, cultural matters, WEU's activities in the Saar, and social questions. On October 12, the Assembly discussed the state of European defense, on the basis of a report presented by Mr. J. J. Fens (Netherlands, Popular Catholic). Following its debate, the Assembly adopted two further recommendations. The first called upon the Council to take an immediate decision concerning the nature of the reorganization of western defensive forces, and to give a clear lead to public opinion in the matter; it continued that it must be accepted that substantial conventional forces be retained in order to meet all eventualities, and that the west German contribution to European defense should be made effective as soon as possible. In the second recommendation, the Assembly expressed its belief that it could not hold an informed debate unless, with due regard to the requirements of security, all the documentation necessary was made available, and recommended that the Council urgently review its interpretation of the Brussels Treaty as regarded WEU's function in that field. The latter resolution, according to press reports, followed a debate marked by a sense of frustration, with nearly all the speakers complaining that the Council had not given the Assembly's defense committee sufficient information on which to base recommendations. A majority of the continental deputies were reported to favor the Council's becoming responsible to the Assembly, rather than to member governments, for its decisions, but they were reported to realize that the United Kingdom parliament would never accept the consequent limitation of sovereignty. However, in the meantime, the feeling was reported to be that governments could still do much to strengthen WEU.

Type
International Organizations: Summary of Activities: III. Political and Regional Organizations
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Times (London), 10 13 and 15, 1956Google Scholar.

2 Council of Europe News, November 1956, p. 35; for information on the first part of the second session, see International Organization, XI, p. 202–204.

3 The Times (London), 05 7, 1957Google Scholar.

4 The Times (London), 05 8, 1957Google Scholar; New York Times, May 9, 1957.

5 For further information on the “grand design”, see this issue, p. 358–559.

6 Council of Europe News, June 1957, p. 6–8.

7 Ibid., October 1956, p. 7.

8 New York Times, September 5 and 16, 1956.

9 Council of Europe News, January 1957, p. 7.

10 ibid., March 1957, p. 9.

11 The Times (London), 02 27, 1957Google Scholar.

12 ibid., March 19, 1957; New York Times, March 20, 1957.

13 New York Times, December 13, 15, 22 and 28, 1956, and January 2, 1957; The Times (London), 10 13, 1936. For previous information on the Saar, see International Organization, X, p. 513Google Scholar.

14 The Times (London), 10 12, 1956Google Scholar.

15 The Times (London), 10 12, 1956Google Scholar.