Abstract
America provided the Arab World with billions of US Dollars during the last few decades. However, previous experience showed us that the vast amount of US aid did not achieve the expected or intended results of democracy, peace and development rather it led to conflicts, wars, anti-Americanism, terrorism and the continuation of dictatorships and the Arab Israeli conflict.
The study aims at assessing the size of US aid and policy towards some Arab countries, and to determine its impact on democracy and political reform with particular reference to: a) Good governance b) political reform, d) inclusiveness and Participation. It tries to find out how much of this aid was spent to support official institutions mainly governments, and non-official institutions such as, political parties, women movements, and other NGOs.

Introduction
Taking the long view, it is clear that most of the Arab countries will not be able to sustain future growth if they do not modernize their political, social, and economic systems. Indeed without greater political development, they risk instability, conflicts, wars and terrorism. The very political stability of the region will require them to undertake reform and move toward more democratic governments, modern and free market economies.
During the last decade, billions of American’s Dollars were given to some Arab countries allegedly to encourage political reform and economic development. It was hoped that it will help transform the area into democracy and economic prosperity. Unfortunately, dictatorships, anti-Americanism, poverty, unemployment and corruption are the main features of the socio-political reality of this part of the World until the present day. According to the last two UNDP reports the Arab region is the least governance, human rights, democracy and economic development (UNDP Reports: 2002 and 2003).
In one of the recent studies regarding this subject conduct by Ottaway and others concluded that “if there is one region of the globe in which democracy deemed extremely weak and difficult or impossible to develop in the near future, it is the Arab World” (Ottaway, 2000 p, 21). Ottaway, argues that the large amount of US money “are never spent in the recipient country but paid to expatriate consultants, administrative overhead and that the data is often imprecise or incomplete” ( P33). The study concluded that ”civil society assistance has not been decisive for democratization in Palestine or in Egypt, nor it is likely to become a force in the foreseeable future” (p. 44). The study showed civil society assistance to Egypt in 1988 was about 1 percent of the total US 2.3 billion aid to Egypt (p.33).
Mustapha Al-sayyed pointed out to a very important issue that the US aid is not only ineffective but that the some part of the Arab public do not see the that aid as a sign of US commitment to promote democracy: rather they look at it as instrument for furthering US foreign policy goals” (Al-sayyed, 2000: p.4).
Another study came to a similar conclusion and argues that: None of the 21 Arab States has a democratic system or can be said to be democratizing (Keane, 1988:13-21)
Democracy and political reform is expected to empower the people and involve them in the decision making process and enable them to choose their leaders and hold them accountable to their deeds. Democracy means transparency, good governance, freedom of the press and the safe guards of human rights. It is certainly the right medicine for ending terrorism and opens the area for socio-economic development and achieving a lasting peace in the area.
The Government of Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Morocco and Yemen had taken several steps towards political reform during the 1990s. Some of them conducted regular general elections, municipalities elections, presidential elections, others established legislative bodies, constitutions, political parties, eased restrictions on freedom of press, established satellites TV stations, privatization, etc. As for Jordan political reform included abolishing marshal law, initiating many new political parties, economic and press laws, and conducting free and fair Parliamentary elections and allowing the establishment of more that 32 political parties. There was a lack of progress, however, regarding press freedom, political participation, women rights and judicial independence and more importantly all governments in the Arab World are not representative in the democratic sense and the parliament belonging to one party or consists of individuals without actual power to oversee governments.
Addressing a wide range of continuing problems, the U.S. democracy strategy promotes the rule of law and legal reform, civil society development, popular participation in the political process and women’s rights. The United States did this through direct dialogue with the Arab Governments at all levels, as well as programs, training and the publication of reports on human rights, labor and religious freedom.
The United States advanced its strategy by building on Arab government’s initiatives to strengthen democracy and human rights. Official and private organizations were directly involved in promoting the rule of law and legal reform.
.
The U.S.-Middle East Partnership Initiative supported programs in Jordan to introduce civic education and human rights awareness in some government schools through linking 52 Jordanian public and private schools with American counterparts enabled students to exchange ideas and information on human rights and the U.S. Agency for International Development’s assistance program assisted women and marginalized poor and rural populations.

Why is this subject important?
The concern with Democracy Promotion represents a dramatic change of thinking for US policy makers. Despite the rhetoric, the old thinking: was as long as Arab regimes are favorable to US interests (oil, anti-communism, peace process, etc…), the US would support them.
After the 9/11, new thinking is much different. Political reform and democracy in the Middle East is in America’s interests. Many Administration officials have spoken about this – not just President Bush’s Nov. 6th Speech to the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington DC.
It was most directly stated by the Richard Haas – the former Director of Policy Planning at the State Department Haas said:”At times, the United States has avoided scrutinizing the internal workings of countries in the interests of ensuring a steady flow of oil, containing Soviet, Iraqi and Iranian expansionism, addressing issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, resisting communism in East Asia, or securing basing rights for our military… It is not in our interest – or that of the people living in the Muslim World – for the United States to continue this exception. US policy will be more actively engaged in supporting democratic trends in the Muslim world than ever before. Countries plagued by economic stagnations and lack of opportunity, closed political systems, and burgeoning populations fuel the alienation of their citizens. As we have learned the hard way such societies can be breeding grounds for extremists and terrorists who target the United States for supporting the regimes under which they live.” from a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations entitled “Towards Greater Democracy in the Muslim World.” December 2003).
To help the Arab World to reach political reform and democratization the United States Administration rightly announced a new initiative for achieving these goals- ‘known as the greater M.E Initiative’- because, practically the previous US aid did not achieve any of its main objectives in the area mainly: permanent peace, stability, development, democratization, end of terrorism and democratization. This Initiative was modified and accepted by the G8 and the EU which give it more importance.

Objectives
The objectives of the project are to increase understanding about United States aid policies to Jordan and to other/Arab countries and assess their impact on democratization and political reform during the last decade; examine US levels of aid funding to Jordan and to other/Arab countries during the last decade; conduct interviews with relevant policy-makers regarding future policy that will be followed for the allocation of US aid for the new ‘Greater Middle East-goals and criteria for democracy’; to write a research paper and 20-page policy study in coordination with the group advisor with recommendations for relevant policy-makers, parliamentarians, political parties, media and academic circles in the United States, Jordan. Finally to increase our understanding of US future aid and policy regarding the methods that will be followed to spend the new US aid that allocated for the new ‘Greater Middle East initiative for democracy’.
Methodology:
My approach to doing this subject is two fold: first I will make use of the official records of the government of the united states, congress and other non governmental organizations and institutions to find out the exact amount of aid that was given to Jordan and some other Arab countries, for what purposes it was used and which party was practically controlling it; second I will make use of the data to see how much of it was spend to support political reform especially for political parties, legislation, freedom of press and women organizations, as they are the main institutions for democracy. To achieve these objectives I may need to conduct a survey to collect data about US aid to the different Jordanian official and non-official institutions and see how it was used and in which way this aid helped them to achieve their goals.
Outcome: The finding will be published in scholarly paper in both English and Arabic and distributed to policy makers, experts and academics in both Jordan and USA and other relevant Arab research centers. It is hoped that its results will be used bye the respected Arab and US governments, congress, parliaments and other institutions to determine the best way of spending the money allocated by the US Administration for the ‘greater middle east initiative for democracy’, particularly to support legislation, freedom of press, political parties, women organizations, parliamentary reform and elections’ practices.
Duration: This project needs at least one year to accomplish.

References
1. Ottaway, M. & Carothers ed. (2000), Funding Virtue, Civil Society aid and democracy promotion, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington D.C.
2. Al-Sayyed, M. “A Clash of Values: US Civil Aid and Islam in Egypt”, in Ottaway, Ibid.
3. Wittes, T., “The promise of Arab Liberalism” see www.policyreview.org/june04/wittes.html
4. Karawan, I. “Liberalization or not”, Freedom Review, March –April, 1995
5. Brumberg, D. “Liberalization Versus Democracy: Understanding Arab Political Reform” Carnegie Endowment , Working paper, 37, may 2003.
6. Alsoudi, A. “Causes of Anti Americanism in the Arab World: A socio-political perspective”, Middle East Review of International Affairs, vol, 7, no, 4, December, 2003.
7. Arab Human Development Reports, 2002 and 2003, UNDP
8. Alsoudi, A. “The role of parliament in legislation and political reform, Paper presented at the International Annual conference of the Parliamentary Program: Parliamentary Reform, Cairo July, 15-17, 2003 (English)
9. .Parliament oversight on government: comparative study between theory and practice, paper prsented at the second Parliamentary Reform conference, Cairo, 2004. (Arabic)
10. Alsoudi, A. “Islam and Democracy in the Arab World”, Paper presented at The International Conference on new Directions in the Humanities, Rhodes, 2-5 July, 2003.
11. John Waterbury, "Democracy without Democrats?: The Potential for Political Liberalization in the Middle East," in Ghassan Salame (ed.), Democracy without Democrats: The Renewal of Politics in the Muslim World (London: I.B. Tauris, 1994),