Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 22, 29 May 1950, pp. 4–5.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
“They were a group of tired, rumpled and uneasy men. Only the American wore the morning coat and striped trousers of the traditional diplomat ... They sat at a semicircular table around the chairman. Secretary Acheson, and read their lines almost perfunctorily. The microphones were set to carry their voices to the ends of the earth and nearly every speaker told the world that the conference was historic. But there was no flourish in their words, no spark to spread the fire of conviction.”
It was with these words that Anne O’Hare McCormick in the N.Y. Times described the final session of the (North) Atlantic (Pact) Council. The 12 foreign ministers were reading prepared statements on the significance and importance of their meetings. To have asked enthusiasm from the European members of the Atlantic Pact would be like asking for a cheerful statement from a man who had just been forced to dig his own grave.
The week-long meeting of the Atlantic Council came forth with the following plans for the further integration of the signatory nations: the establishment of a commmittee to coordinate the military and economic plans of the members, with an American as chairman, and the creation of “balanced collective (military) forces” as opposed to each nation’s attempting to concentrate on all branches of an armed force.
However, the communique from the Atlantic Council left out more than it included. For the overriding problem facing the European members of the council is: How are they going to be able to pay for the armaments that the United States wants them to acquire?
At the April meeting of the defense and finance ministers of the North Atlantic Pact, the Europeans threw up their hands in despair when informed of the extent of the rearmament proposed. They all maintained that to meet these demands would mean the lowering of living standards at home and consequent political unrest.
The statement of the 12 foreigh ministers pointed out that there should be "adequate military defense without impairing the social and economic progress of these countries.” But how can this be done unless the U.S. agrees to supply more military and economic supplies? And even then it assumes that this perilous “stability” at below prewar (depression) living standards can exist for a long period.
It was in this framework that the U.S. announced that it would enter into a “working” relationship with the European Marshall Plan Council (OEEC). where it now sits os an “observer.” It was pointed out that “while the European Recovery Program terminates in 1952, the interest of the United States in Europe will necessarily continue.”
This then is tacit recognition that some new U.S. program has to be put forth. The N.Y. Times correspondent, Harold Callender, therefore writes on May 21:
“it appears certain we shall have a new kind of Marshall Plan, whatever its name. The first Marshall Plan was designed to make Europe financally independent of the U.S. The next one will have the two objectives: to cover Europe’s dollar gap following the existing Marshall Plan so that Europe will suffer no economic and social setbacks; and, secondly, to cover Europe’s budget deficits incurred through defense expenditures resulting from the North Atlantic Treaty.”
Clearly it is pointed out that the U.S. is to put Europe on the dole in the attempt to build fighting allies for the Third World War. The Marshall Plan is a failure, even though without the forced military expenditures, for the U.S. will not allow Western Europe to become financially independent. American industry will resist the acceptance of European imports which arc necessary if Europe is to pay for American exports.
But for Western Europe it is not merely a question of a new Marshall Plan in order to arm a few more divisions. There is a real anxiety over the strategical question of whether Western Europe can be adequately defended given the economic limitations of a weakened economy, and the role that the U.S. will play in this defense.
On the one hand are the proposals that Acheson brought with him to London. Acheson demanded that Western Europe contribute significantly to rearmament. But Western Europeans have been demanding that since the U.S. is pressing for the rearmament, it should pay the lion’s share. The compromise arrangement reached is that there would be a scaling down of the military plans.
This compromise in turn raises fears in the Europeans’ minds that while the U.S. wants rearmament it is not willing to pay the bill. That is, the U.S. wants to enjoy the benefit of a rearmament, but it is going to preserve its own strength as much as possible. This is a reflection of the fear over the strategic problems of the possibility of defending Western Europe.
On the other hand there are the isolationist tendencies in the U.S. While they are not the voice of the government, they are important enough to demand attention. Herbert Hoover in a recent speech said in effect that the U.S. should not give aid to those whom it could not count on in case of a showdown. This was in pointed reference to Western Europe.
The Marshall Plan nations for their part have been trying to blackmail the U.S. into giving more military and economic aid. There are the recent statements that Western Europe might consider sitting out the cold war as an alternative. This is also a reflection of the real weariness of all the social classes when confronted with another armament race and the devastation of a third World War.
The U.S. went to London concerned about “balanced collective forces” and the coordination of military commands. But the Europeans on the other hand were concerned about the cost of the proposals. American capitalism is more enthusiastic about what it has to gain from participation in the cold war; European capitalism is more doubtful.
It was “only the American who wore the morning coat and striped trousers of the traditional diplomat”; the rest had “no spark to spread the fire of conviction.”
Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 2 April 2024