Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe
The idea of building an Eastern European Marshall Plan under the primary stewardship of the United States is unrealistic given the new world economy. The Times should reconsider its favorable position on such a venture (“Another Marshall Plan?” editorial, Sept. 28).
In 1992 the European Common Market will pose a formidable challenge to the economies of the United States and Japan. This European union will be the greatest benefactor of a free Eastern Europe because it creates the possibility of an expanded European market.
The condition of the Soviet superstructure also hinders our ability to fully influence the economic liberation of Eastern Europe. It is too early to tell if perestroika and glasnost will survive, and thus the fate of economic reform in Eastern Europe is uncertain.
The U.S. should set its sights in developing economies in the Western Hemisphere that in the future may be integrated to compete against Super Europe. Both true democracy and free markets in nations like Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Brazil are not the norm. Those Western Hemisphere nations fight tooth and nail to gain favorable trade status with the United States and Canada.
No Western Hemisphere nation ranks in the top three of United States economic aid recipients.
The idea of national economies is on the wane. New conditions make integrated economies crucial for survival. For the United States, it is a question of whose integrated economy we will help create: Europe’s or our own.
ADAM ORTEGA
Los Angeles
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
