A New Marshall Plan for the Middle East

Floor Speech

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, in Jerusalem last week during a private meeting with U.S. Senators, the Prime Minister of Israel suggested creating a new Marshall Plan to help the people of Middle Eastern countries who are struggling to gain more freedom. I was one of the Senators in that meeting.

In one important way, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's proposal is different from the plan that helped rebuild Western Europe after World War II. Its funding would not come from the U.S. Government but from private gifts and foundations worldwide. Instead of the money going for rebuilding bombed out industrial plants and roads as it did after World War II, it would more likely be spent in the Middle East now on schools, on health clinics, and on clean water.

Fundamentally, though, the plans are very similar. Both GEN George C. Marshall in 1947 and Prime Minister Netanyahu today proposed helping adversaries as well as allies. Both aim to relieve hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos. Both proposals are based squarely on self-interest, as antidotes to the spread of philosophies unfriendly to democracy: communism in the case of postwar Europe and militant Islam in the Middle East today.

In both cases, applicants for the money would write their own plans. In 1948, 16 nations met in Paris to develop the Marshall plan. President Truman then submitted it for approval to the Congress. Most of the money was distributed by grants that did not have to be repaid.

The first Marshall plan was short term, from 1948 to 1952, and so should be this new Marshall plan. The goal is not to create dependencies but to help people stand on their own.

There are some important differences between the idea of the Marshall plan after World War II and Prime Minister Netanyahu's proposal for the Middle East. The new Middle East Marshall plan would cost much less. The original Marshall plan spent between $115 billion and $130 billion in today's dollars over those 4 years. If a Middle Eastern plan carefully distributed a few billion dollars over 5 years it could have an enormous impact.

The Marshall plan started out after World War II buying food and fuel and ended up rebuilding bombed-out industrial plants, roads, and other infrastructure. In addition to schools and clinics, a Middle Eastern Marshall plan is more likely to spend money on, for example, a corps of young people who are paid a subsistence wage to strengthen their own country.

Marshall plan money went to 16 European governments. Money for a Middle Eastern plan should probably be distributed through non-governmental organizations.

After World War II, there was a clear effort to impose on Europe and Japan the American model. We should have learned by now that the path to democracy in the Middle East is more likely to be uniquely Middle Eastern. The original Marshall plan was paid for mostly by United States taxpayers. Money for this new plan should come from around the world, mostly from private gifts.

The first Marshall plan was used mostly for purchase of goods from the United States. Today, those goods would be purchased from around the world.

What are the next steps? First, a coalition of foundations should step forward and announce its willingness to consider proposals from Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries that would assist a transition to a more democratic form of government.

Second, the first grants should be quickly approved, probably to non-governmental organizations already in place. The original Marshall plan moved slowly. In this age of instant communication, freedom fighters expect immediate results. Some evidence of improvement in their lives could help sustain a movement toward democracy against the lure of militant Islam.

An early State Department memorandum compared General Marshall's proposal to a flying saucer: ``Nobody knows what it looks like, how big it is, or whether it really exists.'' Prime Minister Netanyahu's proposal also is usefully vague, with details to be filled in later by applicants for grants. But shouldn't it be enough simply to propose helping people struggling for freedom based upon the hard-eyed belief that their success will benefit other Democratic countries, including the United States and Israel?

Source