MAY 18th, 1931:A proposal by Germany and Austria to create a customs union in 1931 was vigorously opposed by France, which saw it as a politically motivated attempt by Germany to cement its hold on central Europe.
France eventually scuppered the plan by withdrawing some loans to Austria, contributing to a series of bank crashes in Austria and Germany which had devastating consequences. The customs union proposal still stood when this editorial appeared in The Irish Times. - Joe Joyce.
WITHIN THE next few days Europe will begin to realise the tremendous import of the Austro-German Customs Union.
Hitherto, France’s criticism of the project as an attempt to establish German political hegemony in Central Europe has been suffered to overshadow its professed object. That object, according to Dr. [Julius] Curtius , is simply and solely to set Germany and Austria upon a sound commercial footing. At last Saturday’s meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, Dr. Curtius outlined the whole question of European economics
. . . Dr. Curtius declared that Europe’s whole trouble was due to her sub-division into a number of small economic areas. While this sub-division persisted there could be no return to the prosperity which the continental States enjoyed before the War.
Since 1918 twenty thousand kilometres of new frontiers had been set up; no fewer than nine new economic territories were in being, and the darkness was rendered darker by thirteen new monetary systems. Union alone would bring strength, said Dr. Curtius, and on this point not even the patriotic and jealous M. Briand is likely to cross swords with him.
Every statesman of vision accepts the need for some measure of economic union among the States of Europe. Germany and Austria believe that the projected Customs Union will be to their common advantage. The inevitable result, as many critics have observed, will be to subordinate Austria’s economic welfare to Berlin.
Austria does not seem to care, but the stock argument against the Zollunion in Central Europe is that Germany is bound to exert an economic predominance over any States that accept her invitation to participate in it. Doubtless, so far as the smaller States are concerned, this view is correct; but the same disadvantage seems likely to attach to any form of European economic union.
The case is different where a unity of blood prevails, as among the British Dominions. There the good of one under a conjoined economic system must mean the good of all; but the diverse States of Europe will not be linked by any tie of common interest. Every State, admittedly, has no interest in union save as a means to prosperity . . .
Two schemes confront the nations. M. Briand and Dr. Curtius have the same object in view; but, whereas the former proposes to attain it by one swift and concerted action, the latter prefers to attain the end by slow degrees.
The French Foreign Minister would have a “United States of Europe”, formed by international agreement, while the Continent remains in its financial slough.
Dr. Curtius, too, maintains that “there must be organisation on a broad international basis”, but he holds that the means to effect this object lies in “regional agreements based on the bilateral understandings”. . .
This week ought to decide the fate of the Austro-German Zollunion, and with it the hope of European “economisation” through regional agreements.
http://url.ie/633h