[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7498-7500]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       FREEDOM IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I rise today to talk about President 
Obama's speech today on the support of the Arab spring, at least what 
we are calling the Arab spring. I believe and hope, as many of my 
colleagues do, that it is in the best interests of the United States to 
advance freedom in the Middle East.
  Supporting free people and democratic governments has always guided 
American foreign policy. Lending our support to people who yearn for 
freedom is really part of our national DNA. Doing so in a practical and 
pragmatic way within the context of regional stability is imperative to 
our own national security.
  In recent weeks I have been very supportive of the President's 
actions as they related to Osama bin Laden and the decisions that were 
made there. In recent months I thought the President has been a little 
unsteady in advancing the principles I mentioned earlier. He

[[Page 7499]]

demonstrated uncertainty in dealing with President Mubarak before 
withdrawing his support and, if I can say so, withdrawing his support 
suddenly. After hesitating for several weeks and allowing Mr. Qaddafi 
to regroup, we then authorized U.S. participation in a NATO air 
operation with a confusing mission that does not have the kind of U.S. 
leadership that it might have benefited from.
  Then in Syria we stood on the sidelines for weeks while terrible 
things happened to profreedom demonstrators before we finally announced 
a series of sanctions just this week.
  Of course, we all recall that in 2009, the Iranian regime possibly 
could have been unseated by proponents of freedom. At that time the 
President and the United States barely lifted a finger to support those 
elements.
  Indeed, the President's entire narrative has been unclear since he 
took office, from the time of his Cairo speech in 2009. I think that 
speech has left our friends in the Arab world both disillusioned and 
confused.
  Nobody, from the American people to the Arab street, seems sure of 
what our policy is in support of freedom. So I was very interested in 
the President's speech regarding a new American policy in the region 
targeted toward rapidly changing situations in the Middle East.
  The President laid out a plan for an AID program for some Middle 
Eastern countries whose internal stability is challenged by recent 
events. The plan would consist of a combination of grants, of loans, of 
debt forgiveness, and the President's plan, I believe, has merit and 
there is value to a robust role for the United States to support 
certain governments at a critical time.
  However, it is important that we recognize that any support given to 
these emerging or existing Arab governments can only be helpful to them 
if they are helpful to themselves. I believe Congress must be a partner 
in the development of this package for it to work. Congress will have 
to ensure that whatever aid is given is both targeted toward an outcome 
that is in the national security interests of the United States and 
does not increase the U.S. deficit. It will be a matter of looking at 
where we can find resources to use them in this new and different way.
  My support for the President's idea will also be contingent on 
several principles being met by the government that receives any U.S. 
aid. As a member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Committee I 
am going to be looking for things where the President would certify 
that the following conditions are being met to proceed further with 
this plan he outlined today.
  First, I think the government and its leaders must reject all forms 
of terrorism if they expect to receive this kind of assistance from us.
  Second, they must demonstrate a credible plan for economic 
development and poverty reduction. Lack of access to economic 
opportunity has been the driving force behind what has happened in 
these countries. It was not about us; it was not about Israel; it was 
about jobs and food and economic opportunity. So that has to be one of 
the criteria that these governments would be looking at.
  Third, they need to demonstrate a record of support for the rule of 
law, a prerequisite for ensuring that U.S. aid dollars will not be used 
to subvert the system of justice or to veil opponents or undermine 
constitutional government.
  Fourth, they must respect minority and religious freedoms, including 
women's rights.
  Fifth, they must have a sustained commitment to democratic reform and 
institution building. Nobody believes that democratic societies spring 
up overnight, but recent months remind us that failing to demonstrate 
commitment to more open systems of government can end in upheaval and 
force change.
  Sixth, these governments, if we help them, must respect international 
norms such as honoring their treaty obligations and respecting 
universal human rights.
  Last, but certainly not least, any government participating in the 
aid package like the one the President talked about today must be 
committed to regional peace. In particular, that includes peace with 
Israel. Israel has both the most to gain and the most to lose as new 
attitudes toward freedom and democracy spread throughout the Middle 
East. Leaders who are tempted to bait their populations with 
antisemitism and then respond to their passions may be even more 
dangerous to Israel than the regimes they are replacing. But an adage 
of international relations is that truly free and democratic societies 
respect one another's existence, recognize one another's right to 
peace, and resolve their conflicts through peaceful resolution, not 
violence, not threats, not terror.
  As nations throughout the Middle East undergo change, we should 
closely monitor their attitude toward Israel. Only nations that are 
constructive in their attitudes and policies toward our ally, Israel, 
should be eligible for the kind of aid the President discussed in his 
speech.
  None of these conditions are meant to suggest these governments must 
be identical or that their leaders must always agree with the United 
States. I believe, for example, the Kingdom of Jordan currently meets 
these standards. I am hopeful Egypt's new leaders will commit to these 
principles as well. Leaders in the Palestinian Authority should look to 
them as a model for receiving aid from the United States and other 
western governments.
  The President also addressed the need for a peace settlement between 
the Israelis and the Palestinians. It would be hard to find anyone in 
this body who does not agree with that concept. We need peace, the 
Israelis need peace and the Palestinians need peace. But we need to be 
very careful that we do not set expectations so high that we create 
deep challenges not only for that process but also for the kind of 
regional acceptance of Israel that must occur in order to achieve 
peace.
  In particular, I am concerned that the President believes that 
unilateral concessions by Israel, including redefining its borders, are 
a pathway to peace. I simply do not think that makes sense. There does 
not even appear to be a Palestinian partner capable of making the hard 
decisions that must occur in order to get an agreement.
  Do we really think that Hamas, which has recently joined the 
government, is going to be a party to a peace deal with Israel? The 
Palestinian Authority has made real progress on the West Bank in recent 
years, while Hamas has brought chaos to Gaza.
  A Palestinian Authority that cannot recognize Israel cannot make 
peace. That is why any financial relationship the United States has 
with the Palestinian Authority needs to be based on the principles I 
just described.
  In his famous Westminster speech in 1982, President Reagan told the 
world the following:

       While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, 
     we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and 
     to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be 
     staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole 
     prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal 
     right of all human beings.

  I believe those words are no less true today, 30 years later, than 
they were then. We are at an extremely important moment as we watch a 
movement toward freedom unprecedented in the history of the Arab world 
unfold. It is important to note that those taking to the streets are 
not burning American flags or shouting anti-Western slogans. It is also 
probably important to note that they are not waving American flags. It 
is simply not about us; it is about them.
  Their passions are driven by generations of economic stagnation and a 
lack of political and economic freedom that has left them behind much 
of the free world's prosperity. These freedoms are exactly what the 
United States stands for. America's role is to support responsible 
leaders committed to peace and sustainable democratic change. I am 
hopeful the President will work with my colleagues in the Congress to 
extend a helping hand to those leaders who are truly committed to these 
values. If he does, I hope to be part of that process as well.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 7500]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________