Alexander: Netanyahu’s Proposed “New Marshall Plan” for Middle East Could “Help Sustain a Movement Toward Democracy Against the Lure of Militant Islam”
“Important Difference” from First Marshall Plan: New Plan Wouldn’t Cost U.S. Taxpayers
Posted on March 1, 2011
“Shouldn’t it be enough simply to propose helping people [in the Middle East] struggling for freedom based upon the hard-eyed belief that their success will benefit other democratic countries, including the United States and Israel?” – Lamar Alexander
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told the Senate today that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proposed “a new Marshall Plan to help Israel’s neighbors in the Middle East who are struggling to gain freedom.” But unlike the post-World War II Marshall Plan on which the U.S. government spent $115-130 billion (in today’s dollars) to help rebuild Europe, Netanyahu suggests that private gifts pay for this Middle East plan and that most of the money would go for schools, clinics and clean water.
Prime Minister Netanyahu made his suggestion last Thursday during his meeting in Jerusalem with seven United Sates senators, including Alexander.
In remarks today on the Senate floor, Alexander compared the post-World War II Marshall Plan to the Middle Eastern version and said that the first step would be for “a coalition of foundations from around the world to step forward and announce its willingness to consider proposals from Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries that would assist in a more democratic form of government.”
Alexander said that most of the money “should probably go to nongovernmental organizations” and that, like the original Marshall Plan, the proposals should be written by the applicants themselves, rather than for the U.S. to impose an American model on the Middle East.
Netanyahu’s proposal is “usefully vague,” the senator said, “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?”
The full text of Sen. Alexander’s remarks, as prepared, follows:
A New Marshall Plan for the Middle East—But Not Paid for by U.S. Taxpayers
Remarks by Senator Alexander on the Senate floor, as prepared
March 1, 2011
In Jerusalem last week, during a private meeting with United States Senators, the Prime Minister of Israel suggested creating a new Marshall Plan to help people of Middle Eastern countries who are struggling to gain more freedom.
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 United States government but from private gifts and foundations worldwide.
And instead of the money going for rebuilding bombed-out industrial plants and roads, it more likely would be spent on schools, health clinics and clean water.
Fundamentally, though, the plans are 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 post-war 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 United States Congress. Most of the money was distributed by grants that did not have to be repaid.
The first Marshall Plan was short-term (1948-1952) and so should be this one. The goal is not to create dependencies, but to help people stand on their own.
There are other important differences.
The new Middle East Marshall Plan would cost much less. The Marshall plan spent between $115 and 130 billion in today’s dollars over four years. If a Middle Eastern plan carefully distributed a few billion dollars over five years, it could have an enormous impact.
The Marshall Plan started out 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 plan is more likely to spend money on 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 the Middle Eastern plan should probably be distributed through nongovernmental 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 the United States taxpayers. Money for the new plan should come from around the world.
The first Marshall Plan money 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?
- 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.
- The first grants should be quickly approved, probably to nongovernmental organizations already in place. The original Marshall Plan moved slowly. In this age of instant telecommunications, 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 Gen. 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?
# # #