Double Standard: Congress & Israel

By Dennis J. Wamsted

Double standards pervade US foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. Working largely through sympathetic congressmen, the pro-Israel lobby (orchestrated by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) ensures that US policy toward Israel is highly supportive, while consistently removing the bite from the rare critical proposals that surface on Capitol Hill. Meanwhile, the Arab countries in the region, including such US allies as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, are forced to adhere to the letter of American law.

A New Foreign Aid Bill?

Nowhere is this double standard more apparent than in congressional actions on foreign aid. Virtually without question, Congress annually earmarks some $3 billion for Israel, even though this ensures that aid to needier countries in the region, such as Morocco and Jordan, will have to be reduced. This double standard was clearly, although perhaps unwittingly, delineated in a recent report by the House Task Force on Foreign Assistance, which was chaired by Reps. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) and Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Foreign Affairs Europe and Middle East subcommittee, and open to all members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The task force concluded that, although the US foreign aid program has had "a positive record of accomplishments," the existing aid program is largely ineffective. "US foreign assistance needs a new premise, a new framework, and a new purpose to meet the challenges of today. It is time to start anew," the authors concluded. Specifically, the task force recommended scrapping the 1961 foreign aid authorization act—which has been amended hundreds of times and, according to the report, is now "strewn with obsolete, ambiguous, and contradictory policies, restrictions, and conditions"—and enacting a new International Economic Cooperation Act with four principal economic policy objectives:

Encouragement of broad-based economic growth;
Environmental protection;
Poverty alleviation; and
Promoting political and intellectual freedom.

One overriding problem with current US policy, the authors wrote, is that aid is increasingly "earmarked" by Congress for particular countries, denying the administration "the flexibility needed to respond to changing needs during the fiscal year." In addition, earmarking "reduces US policy leverage because recipients know that funds will eventually be forthcoming. " The extent of the problem is dear: in the current fiscal year, Congress has earmarked well over 90 percent of all military aid and monies appropriated for the Economic Support Fund (ESF). Consequently, the authors recommended, new foreign aid legislation should significantly reduce the practice of earmarking—if not eliminate it altogether.

Notwithstanding this preferred course of action, the task force report admitted that completely eliminating earmarking is unlikely. "Limiting earmarking requires discussions among legislative and executive branch leadership, to establish an informal understanding that politically inevitable earmarks will go forward, in exchange for holding the line on other earmarks." This obscure sentence refers to Israel and, by extension, Egypt, and the probability that Congress will continue to insist that huge levels of aid be set aside each year for those two politically popular countries.

Rep. Gilman, who is Jewish, was more explicit, writing separately at the report's conclusion about the need to maintain earmarked aid for certain countries, notably Israel. "In my view," he wrote, "there should be a limited number of exceptions to this proposal (on reducing earmarks). I believe that earmarks in current law for Greece, Egypt, and Israel must be maintained to make clear our unequivocal support for the security of those countries, as well as our continuing support for the Middle East peace process in the latter two countries." If the proposal is ever publicly debated, AIPAC and its congressional supporters will likely use Gilman's rationale as the foundation for their arguments in favor of continuing earmarked aid to Israel.

Although perhaps a recognition of current political realities, maintaining the status quo for Israel and Egyptwould effectively negate any foreign aid reform initiatives since the two countries account for such a large proportion of the overall US foreign aid program. Indeed, from 1977-1989, the two countries received 47 percent of all US bilateral assistance, with Israel taking in roughly, $46 billion, while Egypt—with a population 10 times larger than Israel's—received approximately $32 billion (including food aid transfers). In addition, benefits first extended to Israel, such as earmarking, have virtually always been extended to other US aid recipients. Therefore, unless aid to Israel is also targeted, any reforms are likely to be short-lived.

The report also recommends that so-called advanced developing countries in the US aid program should develop to "the point where they may no longer require concessional assistance." The task force report identifies Jordan, Morocco, and Costa Rica as candidates for "graduation" from the aid program. However, no mention is made of Israel, which is by far the leading recipient of concessional US aid.

Another recommendation involving economic aid calls for the US to "use economic assistance, both development assistance and ESF, to promote sound economic policies. " To ensure that US assistance is used effectively to mutual benefit, the act would require that it be programmed "to promote appropriate economic policies at all levels." However, once again, no mention is made of the $1.2 billion a year in ESF monies that the US gives to Israel—money that is currently transferred to Israel each year with virtually no use restrictions or reporting requirements.

Secretary of State James Baker III noted the Bush administration's support for revising the foreign aid authorizing legislation in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in mid-February. "It is dear to me that we will need new legislation so that the executive branch will have the latitude to manage effectively the limited resources at our disposal," Baker told the committee. To this end, he said, the administration would soon propose legislation on the foreign aid program that included some substantive changes.

Looking Ahead

Despite the seemingly widespread support for new foreign aid legislation both in Congress and the administration, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient time this year to enact such far-reaching alterations. In particular, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Dante Fascell (D-FL) has said previously that he hopes to have completed work on the authorizing legislation for fiscal year 1990, which begins Oct. 1, 1989, by early April.

Aware of this timetable, in his testimony before the House committee, Baker focused on short-term initiatives aimed at stretching the administration's proposed $14.6 billion foreign aid request for fiscal 1990. In particular, the secretary said the administration would ask Congress to approve a "fair pricing" measure for all foreign military sales, a measure that would force the Pentagon to absorb the entire cost of a weapon system's research and development and overhead. "If we could eliminate those types of charges to our FMS (foreign military sales) customers, we could make our scarce security assistance dollars go a good bit further," Baker said.

As with many other foreign aid initiatives, this idea originated as a benefit directed toward the Israeli government. In fact, just last fall Congress approved a narrow "fair-pricing" initiative that exempted Israel and Egypt from paying research and development and overhead costs for the F-16 aircraft currently being purchased by both countries.

The full cost of Baker's proposed fair-pricing initiative is uncertain, with estimates ranging from $37 million to $156 million a year. But one thing is certain, the US taxpayer will end up paying the tab.

Dennis J Wamsted is a free-lance writer specializing in the US Congress and Middle Eastern affairs.