[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 2835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                A NEW MARSHALL PLAN FOR THE MIDDLE EAST

  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?

                          ____________________