Saturday

4th Dec 2021

Opinion

A coronavirus 'Marshall Plan' alone won't be nearly enough

  • German chancellor Angela Merkel making an unprecedented TV address to the nation, on March 18, 2020. (Photo: Kanzleramt)

Senior figures across Europe, from the presidents of the European Council and the European Parliament to the prime minister of Spain and the head of the OECD have all called for a "Marshall Plan" to deal with the enormous human and economic costs of the Covid-19 crisis.

The Marshall Plan has also been invoked in the American debate over a two trillion dollar stimulus and compensation package.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

The symbolism is powerful.

But to give these references substance, leaders need to remember what the Marshall Plan really meant. It is about politics and strategy as much as it is about money.

Sure, it is about scale. The Marshall Plan – the European Recovery Plan of 1948-1951 provided some $12bn (about $130 billion in today's dollars, or €118bn) in American assistance to participating European countries.

Further amounts were allocated after 1951 through a succession of programmes. These were substantial sums, and they played a critical role in Western Europe's post war reconstruction.

These numbers are dwarfed by prospective needs, and the needs are not just European or American, but global.

Are the resources of international financial institutions sufficient to fend off collapse across the developed north and the global south?

The apparently immense scale of the recovery needs in Europe after 1945 could be dwarfed by the economic consequences of the current crisis.

The symbolism of the Marshall Plan can help mobilise health and economic resources at real scale.

But the Marshall Plan was, above all, a political project. The plan was not just about financial aid.

It was a strategic attempt to build a cohesive Europe in the face of communist pressure and Soviet aggression. The response to the Covid-19 crisis has echoes of these post-war choices.

Will recovery be pursued on a national or cooperative basis? Will it strengthen the European project or contribute to its erosion?

The Marshall Plan was a conscious attempt to foster European cooperation and integration – in American interest.

Multilateral agreement was a requirement for the distribution of Marshall Plan assistance. The Plan was a conscious effort to leave behind the nationalist impulses that had driven Europe to catastrophe between 1914 and 1945.

Nation states now face a multi-faceted challenge that does not respect borders and cannot be managed by national responses alone.

It is a striking irony that this crisis comes at a moment when nationalism is on the rise and sovereignty is the order of the day.

This nation-first approach is the antithesis of what George C. Marshall and post-war European leaders had in mind.

Some of the leaders calling for a Marshall Plan-like response to the Covid-19 crisis do have a concerted European Union approach in mind.

'Rhetorical flourish'

But it is not just about the sources or the scale of the funding. It is about how the money is spent and, in particular, the extent to which it contributes to European cohesion and integration.

The dithering over appropriate financial mechanisms and the persistent northern European aversion to anything that would seem to subsidise southern European debt is all too reminiscent of the parsimonious approach to the eurozone crisis.

A Marshall Plan without European solidarity is a hollow rhetorical flourish.

Finally, the Marshall Plan was an explicitly transatlantic project. Since 1945, potentially existential threats to security have been addressed in the spirit of multilateral cooperation.

It has never been perfect.

But from the Cold War to 9/11, or the post-2008 financial collapse, American and European leaders recognised the imperative of international cooperation to manage international risks.

The steady erosion of this cooperative instinct has left governments and societies more vulnerable to global shocks. A genuine Marshall Plan-like response to the Covid-19 crisis would also push back against the viruses of nationalism and unilateralism.

Author bio

Ian Lesser is vice president of the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Column

Trying to think straight about coronavirus

Clear-headed thinking becomes nearly impossible under this relentless barrage of bad news and apocalyptic analysis, Ferraris writes - a state of mind he describes as "cogito interruptus".

Coronavirus crisis deepens, but solidarity blooms

Despite the horrific impact of the coronavirus on the EU's economy and daily life of its citizens, solidarity is spreading across communities in all member states - with offline and online initiatives.

The future of 'Made in China' after coronavirus?

In repointing Europe's approach to industrial policy, some policymakers have prized China as an example to follow. Luckily, the European Commission is moving towards a European approach.

Coronavirus sees approval-rating soar for EU leaders

The rise in support for mainstream parties has been paired with stagnation or decline for far-right populist parties and figures - the AfD has dropped to 10 percent in Germany and Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini are treading water.

News in Brief

  1. Covid: Belgium might close schools and cultural activities
  2. EU consumers can sue Facebook, judge advised
  3. French centre-right tilts toward Pécresse
  4. EU urged to blacklist Israeli spyware firm
  5. Austria's ex-chancellor Kurz quits politics
  6. EU agency: Omicron to be over half of infections 'within months'
  7. New German restrictions target the unvaccinated
  8. EU commission unveils proposal to digitalise justice systems

This 'Black Friday' is a turning point in corporate accountability

Much supply-chain abuse remains hidden from plain sight – not only to consumers but to the companies themselves, who have built increasingly longer, more complicated, and more opaque supply chains, which have become harder to monitor, control and account for.

The South China Sea should be of concern to Europe

If China is allowed unimpeded to break the law of the sea in the South China Sea, think about the repercussions elsewhere. It could ricochet into Europe's High North. In the Arctic, Nordic nations have overlapping claims with Russia.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNew report reveals bad environmental habits
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersImproving the integration of young refugees
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNATO Secretary General guest at the Session of the Nordic Council
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersCan you love whoever you want in care homes?
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNineteen demands by Nordic young people to save biodiversity
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersSustainable public procurement is an effective way to achieve global goals

Latest News

  1. Belgium tightens Covid rules as health system 'is cracking'
  2. EU and US tighten screw on Lukashenko
  3. Belgian impasse leaves asylum seekers on snowy streets
  4. EU 'missed chance' to set fossil-fuel subsidies deadline
  5. EU energy ministers clash amid gas price uncertainty
  6. ECJ told to dismiss Poland and Hungary rule-of-law challenge
  7. Covid: what Germany got right - and wrong
  8. Quick Take: Enrico Letta

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us