Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From New International, Vol. XVI No. 4, July–August 1950, pp. 199–201.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
The concluding statement of the London Conference and Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s report to Congress on the conference both emphasized the principle of “balanced collective forces” for the defense of the “Atlantic Community” which had been accepted at the conference. Acheson stated that this principle “... was the only principle which could reconcile the resources available with the demands upon them. It is the only way in which forces can be developed to meet successfully any initial attack,” etc.
Acheson recognizes that the concept is revolutionary in scope, at least as it has been presented in theory. In his same address, he remarked that:
“This principle of balanced collective forces is of great and perhaps revolutionary significance. It demonstrates that each country will rely on every other member of the community, and that the community will look to each country to contribute what it is best able to contribute to the common defense in accordance with a common plan.”
The New York Times points out that this amounts, in effect, “... to an international army based on a division of labor and military functions among the nations signatory to the pact.”
Acheson hastily added, of course, that the leading role must be played by America. “The United States ... has necessarily a leading role in building balanced collective forces.” This speech was quickly followed by presentation of the Truman proposal for the shipment of arms totaling $1¼ billion over the next fiscal year to the twelve Atlantic Pact nations, making a total of $2½ billions so far (with many more billions clearly on the way). But the fact remains that American imperialism is now launching its supreme and decisive effort to mobilize and rally the nations of Western Europe so as to make them “impregnable against attack” on the part of Stalinist Russian imperialism.
In the concept of balanced forces is likewise involved the concept of national sovereignty, or rather, its relaxation and partial abandonment. In some form or other, the tendency is toward the economic and social integration of Western Europe, and the real issue is: under whose leadership, and for what purposes?
The intentions of America are clear enough in this respect. The first phase of the Marshall Plan saved Europe from economic disintegration beyond the point of recovery; the second phase sought the expansion of European productivity and a partial renewal of its productive capital; the third phase, now begun, will attempt to integrate Western Europe into an economic whole, with stable currencies, high production, and a free exchange of goods. But this third phase goes hand in hand with the military mobilization of Western Europe which, in reality, will extend beyond the end of the Marshall Plan in 1952. French military manpower, British naval forces, American planes, guns and equipment – these are the “balanced forces” in view, integrated into a powerful military whole by the gears of American dollars. Although the ultimate phase is far from practical, this will unquestionably be the day when the “Atlantic Community” feels capable of assuming the offensive against the “Russian-Eastern Europe Community.”
Will this concept of “balanced forces” advance very far? Can Western Europe, under American leadership, actually unify itself? Even the bare fact that twelve sovereign powers got together and announced their willingness to make such an effort should indicate that these questions exclude any dogmatic answers. Under the pressure of necessity, and in the struggle for survival, capitalism can exercise a certain flexibility never before seen and never expected. But true integration and true unification are excluded, since this requires the free and conscious participation of the national masses of all countries involved. At best, a division of military labor and military forces can take place, but it is doubtful if it will go much beyond preliminary and upper level measures.
We see, for example, the sharp struggle which has already begun over the Schuman proposal for a pooling of Western Europe’s coal, iron and steel industries. The British have indicated their refusal to participate in such a measure, based upon their justified suspicions that French capitalism is intent upon organizing some kind of a Franco-German cartel combine, aimed both at a future nationalized British steel industry, and at America. Substantial sectors of European capitalists (particularly the Ruhr bourgeoisie) see the possibility of reviving Western Europe as an independent “third bourgeois force” by following the road of integration, as they understand it. Now, how can one speak of “balanced forces” if heavy industry, required to supply these forces, cannot unify and planify? The fact is that each time a serious act of “integration” is proposed, it is either rejected or modified by the other nations, beyond recognition. If this does not occur, its motivation is quickly revealed as nationalistic and imperialistic in content, and a rapid alignment of blocs takes place. Although we must see what happens as plans for building the “balanced forces” grow, it is not too difficult to predict far more struggle and conflict than harmony and integration.
Furthermore, how shall American imperialism attempt to exert its leadership? Will it demand an increasing share of Western Europe national budgets be set aside for war production purposes? How shall it persuade France that the scores of divisions to be raised and mobilized must come primarily from her manpower? What effect will the conclusion of economic aid have upon the “guns or butter” issue which will shortly confront all Western European nations? And will America’s “division of labor” in the joint effort include a willingness to increase its imports from Europe, thus reducing the present export-import gap? These are but a few of the unanswered questions.
Nevertheless, the issue of Western European unity remains a living one, and revolutionary socialists of Europe again have the opportunity to present their counter-proposal for unification to that of the combined imperialists. To tell the full and rounded truth about the American-London proposal includes the necessity of presenting a counter-program. We are for a stand of Western Europe against Stalinist imperialism – and U.S. imperialism as well; the kind of effective stand an independent Western Union could make. The Acheson stand cannot beat Stalinism, but it can bring Europe to military vassalage.
Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 18 October 2018