Orchestrating Europe (Text Only)

This argues that the EU’s slowly evolving statehood – which is a subtext throughout this book – will continue to differ in kind from the statehood of its members. Each player operates in a multinational range. Each of them has its own distinct global interests, its own concept of what is good for it within the European framework. It is this which it wants inserted, like a pacemaker, in the heart of Europe. No nation state has to contend with such a game, none is so much an artefact of the game.

What the EU will become is not something this book attempts to guess. Given the model of perpetual flux which the formula competitive symposium implies, that would depend on answering an impossible set of questions about the future of the nation state, which is at present still the EU’s main determinant. Yet that outcome will be affected by all the players, not just member states and Community institutions, in the double game in Brussels and national territories. How power is exercised in the Community is inseparable from the sum of all their transactions, a state of affairs which national governments would not permit at home but are powerless, because of their diversity, to prevent here.

By participating, players affect each other’s perceptions of one another and what each is doing. As a result, the European Union may be becoming more like a global market in political and economic terms, but not necessarily so in social or cultural respects since there is a wider assimilation at work, beyond the one that makes their behaviour patterns similar. As their perceptions change – faster with the onset of an internal market – so may their interests. Imperceptibly, the economic players may become European, whatever nation states do, whether or not a European public comes into existence to fulfil what, in national terms, remain ‘unnatural communities’. Yet the Community cannot be confined to the economic sphere because there are not even Chinese walls to separate economics from the political economy. If that makes the Community into a state, albeit of a different order from nation states, then the members of it must accept the outcome of what they have helped to create.

Sources

A book like this can only be written on the basis of elite oral history. Only one major archive, that of the Confederation of British Industry, was made available to us, from 1973 more or less to the present day. In amassing our own archive of over four hundred and forty interviews, we were able to hear the views of as complete a range of practitioners as seemed possible: Commission officials, Commissioners, member state administrators, politicians and Permanent Representatives, MEPs, judges and Advocates General, regional notables, representatives of peak institutions in the industrial, financial and labour sectors, and a considerable variety of firms’ and financial institutions’ executives.

We should emphasize that this selection was not Brussels-oriented, but incorporated a variety of standpoints: those of twelve member states, weighted according to size, four applicants for membership, five regions in the five largest member states, and a range of firms and sectoral organizations chosen to illustrate particular cases and their diversity of ethos and orientation. The choice of retired respondents as well as those in post enabled us to cover the period 1973 to 1994, and in particular to obtain insights into less-studied areas such as the Court of Justice, and the Committee of Central Bank Governors in Basel.

There were, inevitably, some arbitrary aspects to the selection, since not all those asked were willing or available to be interviewed. We concentrated more, for example, on the European Court of Justice than the European Parliament, whose powers and informal structures are still in the process of evolution; and on certain Commission Directorates, dealing with industries and the financial sector, rather than others. The interviews themselves naturally vary in quality, but at best constitute a significant weight of evidence. Copies have been lodged at the Sussex University European Institute, at the European University Institute in Florence, and at the Hoover Institution, Stanford, California.

These are in the form of notes, not verbatim transcripts, being the researcher’s record of what took place. This creates problems of attribution. Some of the material would not have been given if the sources were to be made plain so soon after the event; in other cases, where many of the respondents agreed, footnotes would have been unmanageably long. Where a choice is made between different interpretations, attribution would have been invidious and unfair to those who spoke in good faith. Furthermore, no individual could be taken as representative of any firm or institution, let alone a whole sector of government. Hence they are referred to here, where direct quotation occurs from the notes, but only by indexed numbers; in the archives they are referred to by a general title such as ‘DG3 Official’ or ‘Executive of such-and-such a company’.

The problems connected with oral history are well known. They include lapses of memory, vindictiveness, falsification, excessive discretion, trivia, over-simplification, lack of perspective and various sorts of distortion and hindsight.

The interviewer in turn has his or her limitations, ranging from choosing an unrepresentative sample to undue deference or bias in questions; not forgetting that the method is often so enticing that it may unwisely be preferred to official or other printed sources.

A distinction should of course be made between oral history, used predominantly to record memoirs of the less articulate (whose lifestyles rarely appear in documentary form), to construct alternative or ‘peoples’ histories’, and elite oral history, whose respondents are used to presenting themselves and their views fluently. Only the latter have been used here because they offer an unrivalled insight into motivations, interpretations, factors in policy-making, and the personal or group interchanges between those who belong to one or other of a number of elites.

The advantages clearly outweigh the risks, which prudence and practice can to a large extent mitigate, though never eliminate. Elite oral history, constructed from discussion with participants in the midst of the action, provides assessments of personalities and events which may not be recorded in documents even when these eventually become available for research. More important, it gives guidance on organizational relations which may well substantially modify observations found elsewhere. No organigram can be weighted sufficiently to show the informal channels or the difference between real and ritual communications.

Some institutions have only a limited effective life before becoming bureaucratized. Some are so informal as to leave no documentary record. All networks operate differently, depending on the question at issue and the level at which they relate to others. Vast as the flood of EC documentation is, ranging from formal reports to discussion documents, these alone cannot establish what on any given question is the place each player in each game merits. Interviewing gives insights into the assumptions or ethos of a group and its collective aims which, in the case of commercial organizations, may never otherwise be fully documented.

Presidents and principal Commissioners relevant to the main themes since 1981 (#ulink_08d068e3-b8b7-51c0-a1a9-02baa3917331)

Presidencies of the Council of Ministers and Meetings of the European Council since 1970 (#ulink_d6e84449-1536-5f51-bf8b-0fd6cef21f5e)

The European Integration Experience (#ulink_272255aa-0cb0-50ef-a6c8-0143ec551afc)

RICHARD T. GRIFFITHS (#ulink_272255aa-0cb0-50ef-a6c8-0143ec551afc)

1 (#ulink_b9a6d71e-e162-5393-ba00-a81e4e158197)

1945–58 (#ulink_b9a6d71e-e162-5393-ba00-a81e4e158197)

In 1945 western Europe counted the cost of yet another continental conflict, the third in the space of seventy years involving France and Germany. Yet by 1958, these two countries had formed the core of a new supranational ‘community’, transforming intra-state relations in the space of thirteen years. It represented a development to which many in 1945 would have aspired but which few would have dared to hope would be realised so quickly. This evolution marked the beginning of what is commonly referred to as ‘the process of European integration’.

It is worth pausing to consider the double connotation of the word ‘integration’, since the expression is used to imply both a sequence of institutional changes (all involving the surrender of national sovereignty) and the enmeshing of economies and societies that it is intended should flow from these measures. To be more precise, ‘integration’ was one of the goals of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), founded by France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries in 1952, and of the European Economic Community (EEC) and EURATOM, both founded by the same six states in 1958. Nonetheless, we should realize that this term intentionally excepts many other types of institutional change on the grounds that they are ‘inter-governmental’, and do not involve the surrender of sovereignty. It also marginalizes other sources, institutional or otherwise, of Europe’s growing ‘interdependence’.

The ‘process of integration’ is given pride of place in the memoirs of those most closely identified with it. This is because they were convinced of the historical importance of their achievements, but also because they were eager to win the propaganda war against the existing inter-governmental alternatives, which they perceived as weak and incapable of sustaining further development.

The institutions and workings of the new supranational communities were pushed further into the limelight by the writings of a generation of political scientists, attracted by the novelty of provisions in the Community and the dynamic inherent in their operations. Their attitudes have subsequently been projected backwards onto the past in a series of histories which concentrate on the struggle for supranational, even federal, institutions, but which mostly exclude developments elsewhere. Yet the EEC came onto the scene relatively late in the day and although the ECSC had been created six years earlier, it was limited in its economic impact. Insofar as the economic boom of the 1950s and the trade expansion that accompanied it had been caused by institutional changes, its origins lay elsewhere. The EEC’s creation witnessed the end of western Europe’s financial and commercial rehabilitation and not the beginning.

Since the late 1970s, a new generation of historians, trudging in the wake of the so-called ‘thirty year rule’ – the period before which some national governments grant access to their archives – have been rewriting the history of this period. Much of this work has still to be assimilated into mainstream accounts but, once it has been, its main achievement will have been to widen the perspective and context of analysis and to rediscover the complexity of the past. This, in itself, has often constituted an antidote to the simplistic ‘high politics’ analysis (and sometimes straight federalist propaganda) of existing accounts. However, thus far historians have been less than successful in agreeing on a coherent ‘alternative’ explanation to federalist accounts.

One casualty of the new history has been ‘American hegemony theory’, at least in its early chronology. The ‘hegemonic leadership’ theory argues that the existence of an American political hegemony allowed for the reconciliation of lesser, more localized national differences. Thus, at the height of its relative economic, political, military and moral power, the United States is supposed to have used its good offices to establish a liberal world order and, more particularly, to have supported ‘integrative’ solutions to world problems that mirrored its own history and that seemed to underpin its own success and prosperity. The new, revisionist literature has demonstrated the limits of hegemonic power and has raised awareness of the degree to which Europe has been able to resist American influence. Equally, it has underscored the ‘European’ as opposed to the American motives in seeking to ‘change the rules’ of European inter-state relations through institutional innovation and reform.

Secondly, historians have stumbled into the ‘actor-agency’ dilemma already familiar to political scientists. Initially, much of the literature focused on the actors: the ideas that drove them, the positions of political power they occupied and their role in the nexus of key players, together with the political processes which they adapted or invented to accomplish their ends. The need to find peace in western Europe and to build a bulwark against totalitarianism formed the ‘real world’ components in this analysis. Subsequently, historians working usually in governmental archives have found a more prosaic subtext to these events. Far from an heroic, visionary quest for a better future, they recount the story of an entrenched defence of perceived national interest. This version of history is often juxtaposed against the earlier approaches but the two are not necessarily irreconcilable. The international agreements that underpin the integration ‘process’ were usually submitted to parliamentary scrutiny and the threat of rejection placed constraints on too cavalier a surrender of sovereignty on issues of real public concern. Moreover, the whole idea of ‘supranationality’ is to adapt the rules of future political behaviour, to determine a new ‘how’ for the political process. It may remain a primary goal even if it requires a surrender of consistency or elegance in the short-term.

This version of ‘perceived national interest’ is itself the outcome of domestic political processes and is susceptible to changes in the balance both within governments and between governments. It is some way removed from the concept of national interest as formulated by ‘realist’ or ‘neo-realist’ scholars, who argue that the state is a unitary actor, intent on maximizing its interests, whose foreign policy behaviour can be understood from an objective reading of its relative geo-political position. Within the literature of integration this type of analysis made its appearance in the early 1960s

and has recently been revived. In its current version, the viability or survival of post-War, democratic states lay in their ability to satisfy a ‘consensus’ built around comprehensive welfare provision, economic growth and agricultural protection. According to this critique, only when these goals can not be met in any other way do governments agree to surrender sovereignty, usually emerging stronger as a result.

Aside from postulating an implausible degree of coherence in collective decision-making, this version of events both exaggerates the dangers confronting European states in what was, after all, the middle of the greatest economic boom in modem history, and the importance of supranational mechanisms in resolving residual commercial challenges.

Despite the awesome destructive power of the weaponry deployed during the Second World War, Europe’s post-War productive capacity was not as damaged as has often been claimed. Although the image of utter devastation still persists, the material damage was concentrated on areas of infrastructural investment (mainly transport and housing) and much less on productive capital. Most historians now accept that Europe’s industrial capacity was larger in the late 1940s than it had been in 1938 and, in some respects, better adapted to the needs of the post-War era. Without taking this into account, it is impossible to understand Europe’s rapid industrial recovery. Already by 1947, most western European countries had surpassed their pre-War levels of industrial output. Germany, the main exception, was not to do so until 1950, by which time western Europe as a whole was producing almost 25 per cent more than in the pre-War years. Although the expansion of manufacturing was remarkable, serious problems still remained. Basic industries, such as coal and steel, struggled to recapture pre-War levels and the neglect and destruction of transportation systems also caused major bottle-necks. Agricultural production was not as severely weakened within western Europe, but recovery was much slower than it had been for industry. Although a poor harvest in 1947 reinforced the negative image of the condition of European agriculture after the War, this was a serious but isolated incident and output rebounded quickly. Even so, it was not until 1950 that production recovered to its pre-War levels.

The impact of all these changes was to widen the productivity gap between Europe and the USA. In industry alone, the USA had emerged from the War with double the output of 1938 and, despite the dislocation of adjusting to peacetime conditions (and a short-lived recession), had added further to this position by 1950. Without closing the gap, it was felt that Europe would be unable to repair the trade imbalance with the US and would be unable to sustain acceptable standards of welfare for its peoples. This problem was aggravated by the impact of the War on Europe’s trading relationships, both with each other and with the rest of the world.

American wartime planning had aspired to a world multilateral trade and payments system. The Bretton Woods conference, held in July 1944, decided in favour of the restoration of the gold-exchange standard (based on gold and convertible reserve currencies) but with two important safeguards. Firstly, it created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to aid countries against speculative attack. Secondly, it agreed a set of ‘rules’ to govern international monetary behaviour. In December 1945, the US proposed complementing the arrangements for world monetary order by the creation of the International Trade Organisation (ITO) to ease trade conditions and to co-ordinate national countercyclical policies. Its constitution, in a much watered-down form, was agreed in Havana in 1948. However, the ITO never came into existence because the US Congress, unwilling to surrender so much control over its protectionist arsenal, refused its ratification. This left the temporary and far less comprehensive General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), agreed in 1947, as the main regulatory body for commodity trade. It is important to note that in both areas, the agenda for action was a global one. There was little place for new regional discrimination and every intention to eradicate existing trade preference areas, usually between colonial and metropolitan powers.

Instead of a multilateral trading system, Europe’s trade and payments had returned to the pattern of bilateralism and autarky that had characterized the 1930s. Indeed the pervasiveness of frontier controls between countries and across products surpassed anything that had been seen in peacetime since the start of the free trade movement a century earlier. Europe’s commercial problems stemmed from several different sources. The effect of the dislocation of the War on many economies made it difficult to divert production to exports at the expense of investment or already low levels of consumption. Moreover, the liquidation or destruction of foreign investments which, even by 1950, were still earning 75% less in real terms than they had been in 1938, removed an important source for covering import requirements. These two developments aggravated trade imbalances but the problem was further complicated by shifts in the direction of trade. Germany had provided many countries with imports of fuel and raw materials, semi-manufactured and investment goods upon which their own industries had depended. Because German recovery was inhibited by the occupying Allies, this source of supply was much diminished. Moreover, agricultural goods, and particularly grain, were no longer available in the same quantities from eastern Europe. Indeed the only area capable of compensating for this shortfall in supply was North America. Thus the trade deficit with the dollar area increased enormously compared with before the War, at a time when the disruption of colonial economies also meant that Europe was no longer able to earn dollars from triangular trade. The scarcity of hard currencies forced countries to restrict imports and control trade through bilateral agreements, augmented with quantitative restrictions and exchange controls. The effects of these problems, and the measures chosen to cope with them, reduced the relative levels of internal trade in peacetime in western Europe to possibly their lowest point in the twentieth century. The share of internal trade as a proportion of Europe’s total imports and exports fell from almost 48% in 1938 to under 35% ten years later.

It was against this background that, early in 1947, there occurred a sharp deterioration in western Europe’s balance of payments. It was probably occasioned primarily by the ambitious inflationary investment plans initiated in pursuit of domestic reconstruction but was aggravated by the impact of poor harvests on Europe’s terms of trade. Yet it was this second factor, with its associated images of hunger, high prices and social discontent, that formed the prime means publicly to legitimize the massive dollar investment programme announced by the American secretary of state, General George Marshall, at a speech at Harvard University in June 1947. The announcement of the Marshall Plan has often been associated with the ‘Truman Doctrine’ of March 1947, which pledged American help to the Greek government in their struggle against the Communists in the civil war. Together, they have come to symbolize the start of the Cold War. Yet Marshall Aid marked another fundamental shift in American policy. It represented a recognition that Europe’s reconstruction could not be managed within a global, multilateral framework, but rather that the continent’s rehabilitation was a prerequisite for the functioning of wider arrangements.

The failure of a global strategy was underlined within months of the announcement of Marshall Aid. When, in 1945, the Anglo-American loan agreement had been signed, one of its clauses had stipulated that the United Kingdom would reintroduce sterling convertibility by mid–1947. This would allow countries to use their sterling reserves for multilateral settlements and thus reduce the pressures on the dollar. On the appointed day, supported by new loans, the British government duly announced the return to convertibility and found itself immediately confronted with a run on reserves. Within seven weeks, the experiment was abruptly curtailed. Nothing else could have demonstrated so eloquently that it was not currency or liquidity that the system needed, but one currency in particular (the US dollar) and in one area (western Europe).

Of course there was a realization that special transient arrangements would be needed to assist recovery from wartime destruction. In November 1943, for example, forty-four governments created the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) for the provision of immediate relief in the form of food, clothing and shelter, as well as the raw materials and machinery necessary to restart agricultural and industrial production. In mid–1946, the UNRRA decided to wind up its operations by the spring of 1947. Before then, in June 1946, another Bretton Woods institution, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD or World Bank) had commenced operations, although it was another full year before it made its first loan. Marshall Aid, however, was an implicit acknowledgment that IBRD funds would be no match for the task at hand.

The United States began its active intervention in Europe’s structural problems with the European Recovery Program (ERP). In comparison with the $4 billion that the United States had contributed to European reconstruction in the first two years since the War through the UNRRA and other programmes, over the four years of its operation Marshall aid allocated to Europe nearly $12.5 billion: $10 billion in grants, $1 billion in loans and $1.5 billion in ‘conditional aid’, which was used to lubricate the limited intra-European Payments Agreement of 1948. Not only were the sums contributed far larger than had previously been considered necessary, but ERP was important in enabling countries to adopt longer-term and more secure planning frameworks for their investment strategies, by giving recipient countries a commitment to provide financial aid and other assistance on a four-year, rather than an ad hoc, basis. On the American side, the Economic Cooperation Agency (ECA) administered the scheme. In Europe, sixteen states formed the Committee for European Economic Cooperation (CEEC) to decide on accepting the aid and, in 1948, continued their existence as the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC).

The dollars were made available for vital import requirements. Only 17% was spent directly on imports of ‘machinery and vehicles’, the rest went on raw materials and agricultural products. The importers, however, paid the equivalent in domestic currency to their governments who were free to use the money on capital projects. This mechanism freed domestic funds for capital formation and, since ECA approval was required before the funds could be spent, it allowed US planners to influence directly the direction of economic change. In addition, for example by refusing funds to Italian firms that dealt with non-’free’ (i.e., communist) trade unions, it also permitted their intrusion into the politics and societies of European states.

The macroeconomic impact of the ERP on European economies has recently been questioned. Certainly it did not save the continent from ruin and starvation since, by the time its funds came on stream in mid–1948, that moment had long passed. Instead, it contributed to the maintenance of already high investment levels, with the greatest relative impact in the first two years. However, funding was not on a scale sufficient to explain the super-growth of the 1950s. It is true that in 1948 and 1949, the contribution of ERP funds to gross domestic capital formation touched 30% in Germany and Italy, but in both countries the global figures were particularly low. The more usual level was around 10%, as it was also for Italy and Germany in 1950 and 1951; a useful but not decisive contribution. New calculations suggest that aid directly contributed only 0.5% per annum to annual growth in this period. Indirectly, the flow of funds for raw materials itself released resources for investment and the secure planning horizons might also have contributed to raising investment and output targets. The ERP also reduced the tension of the said structural adjustment. At a time when demand exceeded supply by 7.5%, an addition of 2.5% to GNP reduced the potential conflict about how wealth should be distributed between labour and capital.

Not unnaturally, the Americans were reluctant to see their funds siphoned off into competing national schemes, each presumably demanding further measures of national protection. They insisted from the start that the funds be allocated according to pan-European criteria and in the service of a pan-European plan. The European criterion for aid assessment was adopted. It was taken as the size of the dollar gap rather than any estimate of size of income or degree of damage. A European plan also emerged, aimed at the previously prescribed goal of balance of payments equilibrium by 1952. However, a closer reading of the European plan demonstrates that it was little more than the aggregation of separate national plans. The Americans had more success in encouraging measures for the freeing of trade and payments from national constraints and protectionism. Although the causes of the economic growth of the 1950s, and the even more spectacular expansion of trade that accompanied it, are many and complex, at an institutional level it was the ERP, through the OEEC, that laid the foundations.

In October 1949, the ECA administrator, Paul Hoffman, made a major speech to the OEEC in which he called repeatedly for ‘integration’ as the price for a continued, generous level of dollar aid. ‘The substance of such integration’, he went on, ‘would be the formation of a single large market in which quantitative restriction on the movement of goods, monetary barriers to the flow of payments and, eventually, all tariffs are permanently swept away.’ Although the OEEC had experimented in 1948 and 1949 with some limited multilateral payments schemes and was at that moment considering a (modest) start to a programme of quota removal, Hoffman’s speech had the effect of concentrating minds wonderfully.

In case the OEEC was in doubt about the direction of American thinking, another ECA official, Richard Bissel, produced an outline for a European Payments Union (EPU), a discriminatory soft-currency zone, which in its detail went far beyond the usual policy advice. The Americans also pledged themselves to providing a sum of $350 million for the EPU’s working capital. It is interesting to note that the EPU was a recognition that another American creation, the IMF, was incapable of supervising Europe’s transition to convertibility. However, its rules and objectives were oriented towards the attainment of full, non-discriminatory currency convertibility. The sterling crisis of 1947 had demonstrated that any such move would rapidly have drained the IMF of its loanable funds. All the IMF could do was to recognize the serious structural problems facing the continent and sanction the discriminatory currency practices that were already commonplace.

The European Payments Union (EPU) embraced all OEEC members and came into operation in September 1950, its structure being an interesting innovation in the OEEC, which is commonly known as an ‘inter-governmental’ institution. In order to resolve conflicts, the EPU included a Special Restricted Committee of five persons chosen by lot from a list of nominees proposed by the member states, with the proviso that none of the committee members could be citizens of the countries involved in the dispute. The committee reported to the OEEC Council which then pronounced judgement. The Managing Board of the EPU, comprising seven representatives and one American observer, adjudicated using majority voting. This, too, was at odds with standard OEEC procedure, but since the Board was responsible to the OEEC Council, serious disputes were likely to end up before them anyway.

Of the initial $350 million granted to the EPU, some $80 million was immediately allocated to countries with ‘structural’ payments problems, while the remainder provided the working capital of the Union. This money was necessary to bridge the gap in the arrangements for debtors and those for creditors. The system worked thus: for each country, a margin of deficit was calculated (equivalent to 15% of the value of trade) that would receive some automatic credit on its intra-European transactions. This figure was demarcated according to five steps. In the first step, the debtor received 100% credit; in the second, he received 80% credit but had to pay the rest in gold or dollars. The amount of hard currency payable was increased until the fifth step, when only 20% was covered by credit and the rest in hard currency. Beyond that, all transactions took effect in hard currency. Overall, within the EPU allocation, a debtor could rely on a credit covering 60% of any deficit. A similar situation prevailed for creditors within the Union but although the overall position was the same (60:40), the steps were not synchronized, with the effect that creditors received hard currency from the Union earlier than the debtors were paying it in. It was to cover this gap that the dollar funding was intended.

No sooner had the EPU been installed than it was put to the test. The German economy already had a huge deficit in autumn 1950 and the situation was rapidly deteriorating. With the exhaustion of its quota in sight, the EPU extended an extra credit line and, in February 1951 acknowledged the need for a reintroduction of quotas and the creation of state monopoly import agencies. By the summer of 1952, the crisis had been weathered and an upturn in exports allowed Germany to reopen its markets. Similar, though less violent, crises hit the United Kingdom and France in these early years and it was the EPU that provided the means whereby countries were not forced to adopt violent deflationary measures. Moreover, although in every case there was some backsliding in the commitment to hold back levels of import quotas, the fact that EPU and the OEEC’s ‘trade liberalization’ scheme (of which more below) were in existence, acted as a control over a more drastic and dislocating return to temporary protection.

From a low point in June 1952, when the combined reserves of the OEEC states stood at $7.8 billion, the position steadily improved until mid–1955 when they reached $13.4 billion. Against this background, the conditions within the EPU gradually ‘hardened’. In place of a ratio 60:40 between credit and gold, in mid–1954 the coverage was changed to 50:50 and in 1955 only 25:75. By this stage much of the EPU’s work had been done and many countries had introduced de facto convertibility on current account transactions (though this step was not formally taken until December 1958). Meanwhile, the EPU’s main customer was France and, although the job could equally have been done by the IMF, the operation held France within the European institutional orbit at a time of political upheaval fuelled by colonial unrest, and when more ‘integrationist’ experiments were being discussed.

The mirror of American concern on payments was its determination to remove quotas on intra-European trade. The obvious multilateral forum for dealing with the issue was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) agreed in Havana in 1947. Yet GATT was fatally flawed. It was dependent for its existence on regular renewal by its members. Moreover, the rejection of the ITO had signalled that the US Congress was wary about agreeing to anything that might affect levels of protection for US industry. At a time when the major dysfunctional element in the world economy was seen to be the inability to pay for dollar imports through the sale of goods on the American market, it was inconceivable to envisage a reciprocal tariff negotiation that did not require for its success concessions by the United States. Although at Geneva, in 1947, GATT partners negotiated cuts of 19% in their registered tariffs on manufactured goods, at Annecy, only two years later, the meagre harvest was estimated at 2% while at Torquay, in 1950–51, it climbed marginally to reach 3%. In both these latter cases, a major factor was the reluctance of the USA to negotiate reciprocal tariff reductions. With success on tariffs beyond them, the members of GATT refrained, perhaps wisely, from tackling the enforcement of prohibitions on quotas, which were seen as even more harmful to trade than tariffs. It was for this reason that the USA accepted a regional solution to the removal of quantitative restrictions (QRs) or quotas on intra-European trade.

At the end of 1949, the OEEC adopted the target for removing import quotas directed against each other, on 50% of their ‘private’ trade, by the end of the year. This target also applied separately to each of the three groups: food and food stuffs, raw materials and manufactured goods. Under prompting from ECA officials, who argued that something a little more spectacular was necessary to convince Congress to continue aid at the present high level, the target was raised first to 60% and subsequently to 75%. The ‘trade liberalization scheme’, as it became known, had several drawbacks that made the commitments, and the achievements, less than at first sight. Firstly, the operation referred to ‘private trade’ and exempted, therefore, imports on government account. This had been done so as not to interfere in ‘domestic’ political decisions but the effect was to remove from the operation of the scheme entire swathes of trade, mostly in agriculture but sometimes also in fuel, controlled by monopoly government purchasing agencies. Secondly this bias in the operation was compounded by the fact that the initial obligation to remove QRs evenly over broad product categories was dropped once the targets were further raised. An over-performance in raw materials, for example, could and usually did compensate for an under-achievement in agriculture. Furthermore, the Liberalization Code allowed a country with balance-of-payments difficulties unilaterally to reimpose restrictions if necessary, causing a rebound effect on its trading partners and undermining the EPU’s ‘discipline’ in the process. Finally, the whole operation excluded tariffs, which were considered the preserve of GATT, so that QR removal was often accompanied by the re-imposition of (partially) suspended tariffs. The initial agreement bore all the hall-marks of the compromises necessary to secure its passage through the OEEC Council.

In October 1950, the OEEC Council agreed that by February 1951, members should remove QRs on 75% of imports from other members, but it was there that further progress stalled. The crisis atmosphere engendered by the payments problems in Germany, the UK and France meant that for them even the 75% target had to be temporarily shelved. Such circumstances obviously inhibited the pressure for further advances. Discussions were also constrained by increasing disenchantment by the ‘low tariff’ countries of the Benelux, Scandinavia and Switzerland towards the failure to tackle tariffs, and therefore to deal with all frontier barriers to trade. Finally, as QR removal advanced, it threatened to touch the hard core of protectionism in sectors deemed by governments to be politically, socially or strategically vital to the national interest.

By the mid–1950s, reflecting their less strained balance of payments positions, most OEEC countries had satisfied their 75% targets. Many had also relaxed their quota regimes towards the dollar area, although not to the same extent. Yet when the decision was taken, in January 1955, to progress towards 90 per cent liberalization, the ‘low tariff’ countries made their agreement conditional upon action being taken by the Organisation to deal with high tariffs. Although they did not get their way, the target was nonetheless renewed and when, in December 1958, France finally attained it, private trading within western Europe had, to all intents and purposes, been purged of quantitative restrictions. There remained residual quota discrimination against the USA and, of course, state trading in agriculture was widespread. Nonetheless, for an experiment with such tentative beginnings, the achievement in reducing tariffs was remarkable.