A Marshall Plan for the Middle East?

The responsibility of an elected press office is to try to promote the initiatives of the official paying their salary in the best possible way, to the point of exaggeration. It is then the responsibility of the media to examine these messages with a critical eye and not be misled.

Since President Obama took office, the White House Press Office has, on several occasions, passed many ordinary measures as bold programs or great historical achievements. It is thanks to this great political marketing instinct that President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize after only having had enough time to make pretty speeches.

The disparity between reality and the media’s spin has rarely been so great as it was in the rhetoric preceding President Obama’s speech on his new Middle East policy. The media — perhaps looking for a sensational headline — was quick to compare the economic measures Obama was about to announce with the Marshall Plan, a generous aid program that had a decisive role in the reconstruction of Europe, within a very short period of time after World War II. The comparison is not only obnoxious, but comical.

These are the only economic promises in President Obama’s speech, leaked by the White House on Wednesday:

– A $1 billion in debt relief for Egypt, with the understanding that the Egyptian government uses the funds to invest in the economic and social development of the country.

– A vague promise to help Egypt get a credit line of $1 billion in the financial market.

– A request to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to submit a plan at the next G8 summit to aid Tunisia and Egypt.

– The mobilization of about $2 billion in private investment by a public agency in Egypt and Tunisia, and the support needed so that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development gives priority to projects in the Middle East and North Africa.

– An initiative to promote trade and investment between the Middle East and North Africa.

In other words, Obama did not commit to spend one dollar from the federal budget. He only promised to relieve Egypt from a $1 billion debt, but without setting a deadline. The comparison between the two initiatives is a joke, considering that Secretary of State George Marshall’s plan in 1947 used $13 billion, which — if we account for decades of inflation — would be $120 billion today.

It is understandable for the U.S. to be a bit stingy helping developing countries when it is trying to reduce its own high deficit. Furthermore, with a House of Representatives controlled by a Republican Party under the influence of the Tea Party, it would be improbable that a large aid package would get the green light from Congress.

So let’s leave the Marshall Plan aside and hope that other international institutions are more generous with the two Arab countries whose democratic transitions are to be an inspiration to the rest of the region. Obama is right about one thing, and that is the importance of supporting the economies of Tunisia and Egypt at a moment as crucial and sensitive as this one, when a significant deterioration of living conditions could derail a process that has generated so much hope.