Gordon L. Weil
President Donald Trump says the EU was “formed in order to
screw the United States.”
This statement is both a gross misstatement and a
demonstration of his ignorance of history.
It is either the result of intentionally distorting history or the sign of
a seriously faulty memory. He insists on using his incorrect claim as the pretext
for levying high tariffs on imports from Europe.
I am an eyewitness to the fact that Trump’s assertion is
false. I played a role in the
relationship between the U.S. and the EU.
After World War II, leaders in the U.S., Britain, France
and Germany agreed to seek ways to prevent yet another clash between Germany
and France that could again lead to world war.
They were determined to find a formula that would make such a conflict
impossible.
The solution was to intertwine the economies of Germany,
France and other European countries so that they would be unable to develop an
independent ability to build a war machine.
Even more important, the joint European undertaking would be based on
democratic principles, with decisions being made in an organization that could,
in many cases, overrule nationalistic action.
That formula worked.
Year by year, new forms of economic integration were adopted. Eventually, a single market was created where
goods and services and even workers could freely move. As more nations joined, they established the
world’s largest trading unit. It
operates along many of the same lines as the U.S. market.
American policy was consistently supportive of the
Europeans’ efforts. The emerging Europe would
adopt the principles of democratic liberalism.
Not only could Europe refrain from conflict in which the U.S. would
inevitably become entangled, but it could become a powerful ally in facing the aggressive
policies of the Soviet Union.
Among Europe’s efforts to create unity was the
establishment of a graduate school where the future leaders of the EU and its
member countries could study, socialize and develop shared outlooks on common
challenges. As an American, I was
selected to attend this school in the hope that I would represent American
democratic values.
I would later become the sole American on the staff of the
European Commission, the international body responsible for adopting
continent-wide policies. It was not
difficult to explain to the American media the details of the new European decisions
that were usually quite compatible with Washington’s policies.
The leadership of the State Department was favorable to the
European effort and supportive in almost all cases. I was able to serve as a non-diplomatic link
between European and American leaders.
The high point came at a meeting between President Lyndon
B. Johnson and Walter Hallstein, the president of the European Commission. I was present with them in the White House
Oval Office when they met to confirm their mutual interest in trans-Atlantic cooperation. Clearly, Europe was not out to “screw” the
U.S.
Of course, the U.S. and Europe would each promote their own
economic interests, just as any country would.
Instead of going to war, they entered negotiations to find workable
arrangements. These talks took the form
of the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations, named in honor of the late American
president.
I became an American journalist, reporting to the
Washington Post and other publications on the Kennedy Round and European
unification. While the negotiations often focused on specific sectors, the goal
was to find a balance of interests. Each
side should be able to end up with a deal that was beneficial to it.
The solution was to increase trans-Atlantic trade by
lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
In launching the negotiations, President Kennedy had recalled that “a
rising tide lifts all boats.” By lowering
tariffs on both sides to increase trade, everybody could benefit. The Kennedy Round succeeded.
This is the history that proves Trump wrong on both the facts and the policy. The creation of the EU was not hostile to the U.S. While the U.S. has a trade deficit today with the EU, the solution is more likely to be Kennedy’s “rising tide” than punching holes in the bottom of the boat.
No comments:
Post a Comment