The Marshall Plan 60 years on: legacy and lessons for Transatlantic relations

Discussion opened with an evaluation of the historic Marshall Plan: its origins, the postwar conditions behind its development, the underlying philosophy of US aid to Europe, the inevitable political and security implications that led to a strong reaction from the USSR. Much was said about the farsighted, multilateral approach taken by the United States at that time, despite its obvious military and economic superiority. American awareness that a complex and flexible international economic system could only be based on cooperation as well as competition was also crucial. The Plan was based on a strong link between capitalism and social protection, between democracy and widespread development.Participants nevertheless noted how many of the choices upon which the Marshall Plan was based, not to mention the reasons behind the Cold War, which began immediately after the Plan was adopted, was quite controversial. In particular, the consolidation of the market economy and of Europe-US interdependence was clearly seen as a provocation to the Soviet Union. Overall, it was pointed out that it is no good projecting onto the past what we know today – there were difficulties at the time and there are difficulties today with finding common ground and transatlantic understanding.Throughout the Cold War, and including during its conclusion, tensions ran high, even within the United States: Ronald Reagan’s actions were really only positively evaluated after the peaceful downfall of the Soviet empire. Still today, historical judgment of Reagan – with his aggressive rearmament policy combined in an original fashion with clear rhetorical-ideological convictions – remains controversial.In looking at the future, the Marshall Plan remains relevant. Domestic consensus at the time allowed the US to launch and maintain an innovative policy, offering hope that a similar bipartisan belief in good policy can improve the country’s foreign policy today. Some participants, however, felt that the democrats and republicans stand too far apart to allow for any such innovation and they also pointed out that the American people still broadly support increases in defense spending, for example.The international system is completely different today from that at the end of World War II: for one thing, many new emerging powers are working now to change the rules of the game in their own favor. This situation is further complicated by the fact that often these emerging powers are run by authoritarian or only partly democratic systems of government, making cooperation with Western democracies difficult.In the final analysis, and given all the challenges we face today, the winning recipe remains one of leadership – a capacity that implies sharing responsibilities, ideals and concrete goals.