The Enduring Mystique of the Marshall Plan
Print This
By William Blum
KillingHope
Wednesday, Mar 2, 2011
The Anti-Empire Report Amidst all the stirring political upheavals in North Africa and the
Middle East the name "Marshall Plan" keeps being repeated by political
figures and media around the world as the key to rebuilding the
economies of those societies to complement the political advances, which
hopefully will be somewhat progressive. But caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.
During my years of writing and speaking about the harm and injustice
inflicted upon the world by unending United States interventions, I've
often been met with resentment from those who accuse me of chronicling
only the negative side of US foreign policy and ignoring the many
positive sides. When I ask the person to give me some examples of what
s/he thinks show the virtuous face of America's dealings with the world
in modern times, one of the things mentioned — almost without exception —
is The Marshall Plan. This is usually described along the lines of:
"After World War II, the United States unselfishly built up Europe
economically, including our wartime enemies, and allowed them to compete
with us." Even those today who are very cynical about US foreign
policy, who are quick to question the White House's motives in
Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, have little problem in accepting this
picture of an altruistic America of the period 1948-1952. But let's
have a look at the Marshall Plan outside the official and popular
versions.
After World War II, the United States, triumphant abroad and
undamaged at home, saw a door wide open for world supremacy. Only the
thing called "communism" stood in the way, politically, militarily, and
ideologically. The entire US foreign policy establishment was mobilized
to confront this "enemy", and the Marshall Plan was an integral part of
this campaign. How could it be otherwise? Anti-communism had been the
principal pillar of US foreign policy from the Russian Revolution up to
World War II, pausing for the war until the closing months of the
Pacific campaign, when Washington put challenging communism ahead of
fighting the Japanese. This return to anti-communism included the
dropping of the atom bomb on Japan as a warning to the Soviets. 1
After the war, anti-communism continued as the leitmotif of American
foreign policy as naturally as if World War II and the alliance with the
Soviet Union had not happened. Along with the CIA, the Rockefeller and
Ford Foundations, the Council on Foreign Relations, certain
corporations, and a few other private institutions, the Marshall Plan
was one more arrow in the quiver of those striving to remake Europe to
suit Washington's desires:
- Spreading the capitalist gospel — to counter strong postwar tendencies towards socialism.
- Opening markets to provide new customers for US corporations — a
major reason for helping to rebuild the European economies; e.g., a
billion dollars of tobacco at today's prices, spurred by US tobacco
interests.
- Pushing for the creation of the Common Market and NATO as integral
parts of the West European bulwark against the alleged Soviet threat.
- Suppressing the left all over Western Europe, most notably
sabotaging the Communist Parties in France and Italy in their bids for
legal, non-violent, electoral victory. Marshall Plan funds were
secretly siphoned off to finance this endeavor, and the promise of aid
to a country, or the threat of its cutoff, was used as a bullying club;
indeed, France and Italy would certainly have been exempted from
receiving aid if they had not gone along with the plots to exclude the
communists from any kind of influential role.
The CIA also skimmed large amounts of Marshall Plan funds to covertly
maintain cultural institutions, journalists, and publishers, at home
and abroad, for the heated and omnipresent propaganda of the Cold War;
the selling of the Marshall Plan to the American public and elsewhere
was entwined with fighting "the red menace". Moreover, in its covert
operations, CIA personnel at times used the Marshall Plan as cover, and
one of the Plan's chief architects, Richard Bissell, then moved to the
CIA, stopping off briefly at the Ford Foundation, a long time conduit
for CIA covert funds. One big happy family.
The Marshall Plan imposed all kinds of restrictions on the recipient
countries, all manner of economic and fiscal criteria which had to be
met, designed for a wide open return to free enterprise. The US had the
right to control not only how Marshall Plan dollars were spent, but
also to approve the expenditure of an equivalent amount of the local
currency, giving Washington substantial power over the internal plans
and programs of the European states; welfare programs for the needy
survivors of the war were looked upon with disfavor by the United
States; even rationing smelled too much like socialism and had to go or
be scaled down; nationalization of industry was even more vehemently
opposed by Washington. The great bulk of Marshall Plan funds returned
to the United States, or never left, to purchase American goods, making
American corporations among the chief beneficiaries.
The program could be seen as more a joint business operation between
governments than an American "handout"; often it was a business
arrangement between American and European ruling classes, many of the
latter fresh from their service to the Third Reich, some of the former
as well; or it was an arrangement between Congressmen and their favorite
corporations to export certain commodities, including a lot of military
goods. Thus did the Marshall Plan help lay the foundation for the
military industrial complex as a permanent feature of American life.
It is very difficult to find, or put together, a clear, credible
description of how the Marshall Plan played a pivotal or indispensable
role in the recovery in each of the 16 recipient nations. The opposing
view, at least as clear, is that the Europeans — highly educated,
skilled and experienced — could have recovered from the war on their own
without an extensive master plan and aid program from abroad, and
indeed had already made significant strides in this direction before the
Plan's funds began flowing. Marshall Plan funds were not directed
primarily toward the urgently needed feeding of individuals or
rebuilding their homes, schools, or factories, but at strengthening the
economic superstructure, particularly the iron, steel and power
industries. The period was in fact marked by deflationary policies,
unemployment and recession. The one unambiguous outcome was the full
restoration of the propertied class. 2
The rising up of the people ... and the conservative mind
James Baker served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan's
first administration and in the final year of the administration of
President George H.W. Bush. He was also Secretary of the Treasury under
Reagan and Secretary of State under Bush. Thus, by establishment
standards and values, inside marble-columned institutions, Baker is a
man to be taken seriously when it comes to affairs of state. Here he is
on February 3, during an interview by our favorite TV station, our very
own shining beacon of truth, Fox News:
"We want to see the people in the Middle East have a chance at
democracy and free markets ... I'm sorry, democracy and human rights." 3
Baker has a record of speaking his mind, whether Freudian-slip-like
or not. When he was Secretary of State, on an occasion when the Middle
East was being discussed at a government meeting, and Jewish-American
influence was mentioned, Baker was reported to have said "Fuck the Jews!
They don't vote for us anyway." 4
They couldn't resist, could they?
News flash: "Judge Mustafa Abdel Jallil, the Libyan justice minister
who resigned last week in protest over the use of force against unarmed
civilians, said he has proof that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi ordered
the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21,
1988. He would not disclose details of the alleged evidence." 5
Hmmm, let me guess now why he wouldn't disclose details of the
alleged evidence ... hmmm ... Ah, I know — because it doesn't exist!
How could Gadhafi's many enemies in Libya resist kicking him like this
when he's down? Or perhaps the honorable judge is simply protecting
himself from a future international criminal tribunal for his years of
service to the Libyan state? If you read any more of such nonsense —
and you will — reach for some of the antidote I've been providing for
more than 20 years. 6
The empire's deep dark secret
"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the
president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the
Middle East or Africa should have his head examined," declared US
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on February 25.
Remarkable. Every one of the many wars the United States has engaged
in since the end of World War II has been presented to the American
people, explicitly or implicitly, as a war of necessity, not a war of
choice; a war urgently needed to protect American citizens, American
allies, vital American "interests", freedom, or democracy. Here is
President Obama speaking of Afghanistan: "But we must never forget this
is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity." 7
This being the case, how can a future administration say it will not
go to war if any of these noble causes is seriously threatened? The
answer is that these noble causes are irrelevant. The United States
goes to war where and when it wants, and if a noble cause is not
self-evident, the government, with indispensable help from the American
media, will manufacture it. Secretary Gates is now admitting that there
is choice involved. Well, Bob, thanks for telling us. You were Bush's
Secretary of Defense as well, and before that 26 years in the CIA and
the National Security Council. You sure know how to keep a secret.
Items of interest from a journal I've kept for 40 years, part II
-
In its more than 50 years of revolution Cuba has never
reciprocated the US aggression against it; no military or terrorist
assaults have emanated from Havana in spite of the many hundreds of CIA
aerial bombings, ground attacks, acts of sabotage, and assassination
attempts. Oh, did I mention all the chemical and biological warfare?
Oddly, the State Department's list of "State sponsors of terrorism"
includes Cuba, but not the United States. The little nation of Cuba has
defied all rational odds against its socialist survival.
-
The wit and wisdom of Mr. Barack Obama: "To ensure prosperity here
at home and peace abroad, we all share the belief we have to maintain
the strongest military on the planet." (December 1, 2008, Agence France Presse)
How true. All Americans share that belief, as they rejoice in the
strongest military on the planet and a veritable overflowing of
prosperity at home and peace abroad.
-
Steven Bradbury, Department of Justice lawyer under George W.
Bush, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was
discussing the legal status of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay: "The
president is always right." (Washington Post, July 12, 2006)
-
"There are 3 billion people in the world and we have only 200
million of them. We are outnumbered 15 to 1. If might did make right
they would sweep over the United States and take what we have. We have
what they want." – President Lyndon Johnson, 1966
-
As the George W. Bush administration was entering office in 2000,
Donald Rumsfeld exuberantly expressed grandiose ambitions for Middle
East domination, telling the National Security Council: "Imagine what
the region would look like without Saddam and with a regime that's
aligned with US interests. It would change everything in the region and
beyond." A few weeks later, Bush speechwriter David Frum declared to
the New York Times Magazine: "An American-led overthrow of
Saddam Hussein, and the replacement of the radical Baathist dictatorship
with a new government more closely aligned with the United States,
would put America more wholly in charge of the region than any power
since the Ottomans, or maybe even the Romans."
-
Shortly after Salvador Allende became president of Chile in 1970,
Nixon's National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, recorded a
conversation in which Secretary of State William Rogers agreed that "we
ought, as you say, to cold-bloodedly decide what to do and then do it,"
but warned it should be done "discreetly so that it doesn't backfire."
Rogers predicted that "after all we have said about elections, if the
first time a Communist wins the U.S. tries to prevent the constitutional
process from coming into play we will look very bad."
-
"The revulsion against war ... will be an almost insuperable
obstacle for us to overcome. For that reason, I am convinced that we
must begin now to set the machinery in motion for a permanent wartime
economy." Charles E. Wilson, 1944. During World War II he held leading
positions overseeing the huge US military production effort; after the
war he resumed his position as CEO of General Electric, one of the
leading defense corporations.
-
Remember Ben Tre? That was the Vietnamese village the Americans
destroyed in 1968, saying "It became necessary to destroy the town in
order to save it." Since then the Americans have been saving towns all
over the globe, in Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Nicaragua, Sudan, Iraq,
Yugoslavia and more. Then on Sept 11, 2001, someone, no doubt overcome
with gratitude, decided to save some Americans. – Bev Currie, Canada
-
United Nations Resolution 1244, adopted in 1999, reaffirmed the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the former Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia to which Serbia was the recognized successor state, and
established that Kosovo was to remain part of Serbia. Today, Kosovo is
independent, because the United States wants it that way, because Serbia
is still being punished for its refusal in the 1990s to act like a
proper European state displaying subservience to the United States, the
European Union, NATO, and capitalism. Independent Kosovo is perhaps the
most genuinely gangster-state in the world. It's led by Prime Minister
Hashim Thaci, whom a Council of Europe investigation recently accused
of being the boss of a criminal operation to kidnap people and steal
their kidneys.(sic) (Associated Press, December 14 and 15, 2010) He and Washington, naturally, are on the best of terms.
-
"Look," said Russian president Vladimir Putin about NATO in 2001,
"this is a military organization. It's moving towards our border.
Why?" He subsequently described NATO as "the stinking corpse of the
cold war." (Associated Press, June 16, 2001; Press Trust of India, December 21, 2007)
-
Senator John McCain, re: fighting in Georgia, 2008: "I'm
interested in good relations between the United States and Russia. But
in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations." (Washington Post, August 14, 2008) One really has to wonder at times about the sanity of neo-conservatives, or at least their IQ.
-
Re: "collateral damage" produced by US bombing in many countries:
Killing innocent bystanders when targeting someone else has long been
considered murder in Western law.
-
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets." – Voltaire
-
"The central aim of the war in Afghanistan — planned well before
the attacks of September 11, 2001 — was to take advantage of the power
vacuum in Central Asia created by the Soviet Union's dissolution to
assert US domination over a region containing the second largest proven
reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world." – Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site
-
"To me, I confess, [countries] are pieces on a chessboard upon
which is being played out a game for dominion of the world." Lord
Curzon, British viceroy of India, speaking about Afghanistan, 1898
-
Ricardo Alarcon, President of the Cuban National Assembly, stated
in 2008: Cuba allows CNN, AP and Chicago Tribune to maintain offices in
Cuba, but the US refuses to allow Cuban journalists to work in the
United States.
-
Washington's "Plan Colombia", launched in 2000, was the militarization of the war on drugs.
-
Michael Moore, March 24, 2008: "I see that Frontline on PBS this
week has a documentary called 'Bush's War'. That's what I've been
calling it for a long time. It's not the 'Iraq War'. Iraq did nothing.
Iraq didn't plan 9/11. It didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
It DID have movie theaters and bars and women wearing what they wanted
and a significant Christian population and one of the few Arab capitals
with an open synagogue. But that's all gone now. Show a movie and
you'll be shot in the head. Over a hundred women have been randomly
executed for not wearing a scarf."
-
Michael Collon: "Let's replace the word 'democratic' by 'with us' and the word 'terrorist' by 'against us'."
-
The American Century went the way of the Thousand Year Reich.
-
Reagan invaded Grenada in October 1983 because he cut and ran from
Beirut after the United States lost 241 Marines in the infamous truck
bombing. The United States invaded Grenada two days later.
-
Noam Chomsky: "The whole debate about the Iranian 'interference'
in Iraq makes sense only on one assumption; namely, that 'we own the
world'. If we own the world, then the only question that can arise is
that someone else is interfering in a country we have invaded and
occupied. So if you look over the debate that took place and is still
taking place about Iranian interference, no one points out this is
insane. How can Iran be interfering in a country that we invaded and
occupied? It's only appropriate on the presupposition that we own the
world. Once you have that established in your head, the discussion is
perfectly sensible."
- In late 1997, according to Dana Priest's book, The Mission,
the Bill Clinton White House wanted CENTCOM commander Gen. Anthony
Zinni to order his pilots to provoke a military confrontation with Iraq
in the no-fly zone by deliberately drawing fire from Iraqi planes.
- Reagan accepted a fateful trade-off when he agreed not to complain
about Pakistan's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability in
exchange for Pakistani cooperation in helping the Afghan rebels.
- "The presumption of 'government incompetence' is seldom a useful
assumption in evaluating the behavior of governments. We only reach
such a conclusion if we take their official rhetoric at face value. In
terms of 'achieving democracy', the official rhetoric, Bush has been
'incompetent' in Iraq. But in terms of the real agenda — building
permanent bases and controlling the oil — he has in fact been
successful. I have found that this is always the pattern: some real
agenda is always being achieved by the policies in force, despite the
apparent bungling in terms of the official agenda." – Richard K. Moore
- The 9/11 attacks reflected the anger and rage that US foreign
policy had produced in the past and then provided the excuse for US
officials to continue such policy in the future.
Notes
- See William Blum's essay on the use of the atomic bomb ↩
- For discussion of various aspects of the Marshall Plan see, for example, Joyce & Gabriel Kolko, The Limits of Power: The World and US Foreign Policy 1945-1954 (1972), chapters 13, 16, 17; Sallie Pisani, The CIA and the Marshall Plan (1991) passim; Frances Stoner Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the world of arts and letters (2000) passim ↩
- Crisis in Egypt - James A. Baker III on Middle East Political Change ↩
- The Guardian (London), December 12, 2000; Haaretz (Israel), November 14, 2008 ↩
- McClatchy Newspapers, February 26, 2011 ↩
- The Bombing of PanAm Flight 103: Case Not Closed ↩
- Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, August 17, 2009 ↩
KillingHope
Print This
|