The Marshall Plan remains one of the most powerful and monumental acts of foreign policy in United States history. From 1947-1951 the United States funded large scale rebuilding and economic stimulus for countries in war-torn Europe.
By 1952, when the funding had already ceased, each country that participated in the Marshall Plan saw economic levels that outweighed pre-war levels. To this day it remains a vital and integral part of the development of Western diplomacy and economic strength.
Though economic growth blossomed and political alliances formed, we are left wondering if something like the Marshall Plan could work now, except in the Middle East. While there has not been a major war that has enveloped the whole region, there have been small wars for the past half century that have fractured the region and made it unstable. Moreover, the United States retains particular interest in the welfare of the region if only for oil.
As the protests in Egypt grow in strength, and Mubarak says (at least for now) that he will not seek reelection, the region as a whole remains unstable. American interests are at stake. This should not come at a surprise, as America has supported the leadership of Egypt for the past three decades, and now finds itself in a precarious position. How does America diplomatically move forth? As bloggers and commentators have repeatedly stated: not through intervention – let the people change the system.
The previous question remains: can something like a Marshall Plan for the Middle East actually work? Or, does it contradict "letting the people change the system"? The difference between the Marshall Plan of the mid-20th century and a Middle East Marshall plan is not so much the "what," but the "how." With the Marshall Plan we saw the remarkable development of American Interventionism, controlling to whom money flowed and how it was spent. Perhaps, and for some this might cause fear, we do not supply the government, but the people.
Micro-financing has demonstrated itself as a worthy tool in 3rd world and underdeveloped nations. It thrives largely on the investing of private citizens investing in small business within developing nations. Our money would go much farther if the US government could fund, through micro-financing, many business and other operations. This, of course, would require the cooperation of governments to allow such funding to occur. This Middle East Marshall Plan does not call for control of money, but an extension of the belief that the people and communities, can best judge how to spend their money. Moreover, this provides the U.S. a particular interest in countries beyond oil and strategic bases, but human interest that devlops and repairs a broken image of the U.S.
It is worth noting that this is not the only option for U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but it remains one worth pursuing. As we have seen with the uprising in the Middle East, people are full of disconent, and America may find itself with another Iran. Our responsibility, as a global community participant, is to respond in a way that supports the people, repairs a broken image, and provides mutual self-interest for both Middle East peoples and the United States of America. It is my thought, and hope, that something like a "Middle East Marshall Plan" will open up new avenues of discussion and possibility.