Another Saar Plebiscite
BY ELIZABETH WISKEMANN AYEAR ago, on October 23, 1954, the French Prime Minister, M. Mendes - France, together with Dr. Adenauer, signed a statute for the Saar : M. Mendes- France made this statute into the condition upon which France accepted the Paris agreements as a whole. It provides for a continuation of political autonomy and economic union with France, but it provides also for a modification of both these things: autonomy is no longer to prevent the existence of pro- German political parties, and economic union with France is to be combined with the gradual construction- of a similar economic relationship with the Federal Republic of Germany. On Sunday, October 23, 1955, that is to say exactly a year later to the day, the Saar population is to be asked to say yes or no to this proposition.
It had been thought that this referendum would be a simple enough matter. Elections at the end of 1952 had shown a com- fortable majority in favour of the status quo which the new statute was to make considerably more palatable. But accord- ing to this self-same statute all political activity was to be unfettered three months before the date fixed for the referendum. This brought into being what are called the pro- German parties, more accurately described as parties which demand the incorporation of the Saar in the Federal Republic of Western Germany; they have seized upon the plebiscite on the new Saar statute as a heaven-sent chance to demonstrate in favour of this same incorporation. The bizarre situation has thus been created that the population here is being vociferously implored, in the name of Germany, to reject the statute to which the German Federal Chancellor has pledged his country and which he has repeatedly recommended for the Saarlanders acceptance.
There is no doubt that the French have made grave mistakes in the Saar and that their economic concessions have been grudging, or, at any rate, have seemed so. Similarly there can be little doubt that the autonomous regime in the Saar, headed by Herr Johannes Hoffman, has all along had bitter enemies, and of late has acquired many new ones. It is equally true that many of the very same Saarlanders, who were glad enough of their economic association with France in the years follow• ing the war, today long to share in the astonishing prosperity of Western Germany. When one goes to election meetings at which all the traditional grievances against France are aired. at which Hoffmann and his colleagues are abused as separatists, and the proceedings end with the singing of 'Deutschland fiber ,411es' against a poster background of stiffly German•eagles, it seems inevitable that the statute will be rejected. The position is nevertheless more complicated than in 1935, there are more cross-currents, and people are less afraid and Perhaps more cynical. At school the children of the clothes manufacturer whose business has grown up under French Protection and who could not compete with cheaper German goods tell the others quite frankly that their parents will vote for the statute to avoid going bankrupt. The miners are mostly bitterly anti-French, since the French State was for years their employer: some of the steel-workers, on the other hand, are afraid that the full employment which they have enjoyed within the existing state of affairs might be endangered if the statute Were rejected. The Protestants in the Saar will say no to the statute. But the big majority of the population is Catholic, and Is duly confused between the Catholic People's Party which says vote for Hoffman and Adenauer, and the Saar branch of the CDU, Adenauer's party in Germany, which says reject the statute although Adenauer recommends it.
Since the population seems to have accepted the dictum of the pro-German parties that to reject the statute is to vote for Germany, one would at first sight expect that a large majority will follow this instinctive course. But whereas it is clear that 'Acceptance of the statute will mean an embellished status quo until a final peace treaty (when the statute itself provides for a fresh plebiscite), no provision whatever has been made for the case of rejection and the French have implied that they will not reopen negotiations. The pro-German politicians are busy disseminating rumours from Paris that this is no more than an empty threat: it does, however, mean that the results of a 'no' vote are at present obscute. On the other hand, if the statute is accepted, elections, to the Landtag, or Parliament of the Saar, are to follow on December 4; in this case the pro- Germans would have the chance to form a government within the framework of the statute which they so vehemently con- demn. This labyrinth of paradox makes sober judges, many of whom expect the rejection of the statute, most afraid of a narrow marginal majority which would fail to dispel the atmosphere of uncertainty in the Saar. According to a WEU decision of last May 11, provisional results will be announced as soon as the votes have been counted. But the WEU Com- mission which is organising the plebiscite will still have to report to the Council of WEU on the manner of the voting : no decision has been taken, as yet, as to how large a majority Will be held to signify a definite acceptance or rejection of 'the statute by the population of the Saar. Only a substantial Majority will make the position clear. And even a clear 'no' Will do anything but facilitate the task of Dr. Adenauer and the moderate political groupings in Western Germany, while the French could declare the Paris agreements annulled.
Previous page
