Glossing Jordan - Now we need to bring democracy to our friends by Matthew Yglesias - THE AMERICAN PROSPECT
The Article is a bit outdated but I cam across it yesterday and I felt it was important to share with all of you....
Glossing JordanWe’ve shown we can introduce democracy to our enemies, if barely. Now we need to bring democracy to our friends.By
Matthew YglesiasWeb Exclusive: 02.01.05
THE AMERICAN PROSPECTIn his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush put to rest rumors of a realpolitik retrenchment in his second term by recommitting the United States to the spread of liberty around the world in the strongest terms since his early 2003 address to the National Endowment for Democracy. As is typically the case with inaugural speeches, it was heavy on lofty sentiment but light on policy details. Fortunately, his new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, a woman known to have his ear, was able to go into more detail during her confirmation hearings that same week.
"
The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the 'town-square test,'" she told the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. "
If a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society." As Israel's minister for diaspora and Jerusalem affairs, Sharansky is not an extraordinarily influential government official. His background as an anti-Soviet dissident, however, gives him a certain global fame and importance beyond his formal authority. And no less a figure than the president of the United States has reportedly been impressed by his recent book, The Case for Democracy, which Bush has recommended to several visitors.
In December, Ali Hatar strode into the metaphorical town square in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and delivered his lecture "Why We Boycott America." For his trouble, Hatar got arrested under Section 191 of the Jordanian penal code for slander of government officials. Jordan, in other words, flunked the town-square test.
Jordan is perhaps America's closest ally in the Arab world. Lacking in oil reserves or a large military, it is, moreover, extraordinarily dependent on the United States for aid, military defense, and for a special trade agreement we reached with the Jordanian government to reward then-King Hussein's helpful diplomatic activity during the period of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The Jordanian state's decision to make peace with Israel and, more broadly, its generally pro-American foreign policy is not widely admired by Jordan's population. Indeed, the most recent Pew survey indicated that only 5 percent of Jordanians have a favorable view of the United States. And Jordanians have other complaints: persistently poor economic performance and persistent tensions between descendant's of Jordan's large Palestinian-born population and those whose families originated east of the Jordan River.
These latter problems are not, of course, strictly the fault of the United States.
We would very much like for Jordan to be more prosperous, all else being equal. Nevertheless, we are blamed for them. Jordanians understand that their government lacks valuable natural resources. They understand that this means it finds external support extremely helpful in bolstering its grip on power. They also understand that unlike in the case of, say, Saudi Arabia, the United States does not get any tangible goods of value in exchange for its support of the Jordanian government. Instead, we get an ally among the Arab states, a government that will cooperate with our initiatives in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, etc.
They understand, in other words, that the Hashemite regime's ability to survive is intimately linked to its willingness to pursue an unpopular pro-American regional policy.
Naturally enough, Jordanians are less than thrilled by this situation, so now and again they venture into the town square to complain. And then they get arrested. The government of the United States, newly recommitted to freedom, had nothing whatsoever to say about this until an intrepid White House reporter asked the president about it on January 26. Bush punted, pleading ignorance of the facts and noting that "His Majesty is making progress" toward democracy.
In fact, His Majesty is doing no such thing. Recent years have seen cosmetic proposals put forward while, in practice, Jordan moves backward -- gerrymandering an unrepresentative but compliant parliament; cracking down on the press, professional associations, and other civil-society groups; restricting public assembly; and relying on ad hoc decrees promulgated while the parliament is out of session. There's no indication that Bush decided to familiarize himself with the facts of the case -- or even with the general political situation in Jordan -- as neither he nor any of his subordinates has mentioned it since. Nor has he been asked about it again.
The trouble here is not especially that the president's policies are hypocritical, or at odds with his rhetoric. The rhetorical dissonance makes things worse, but the basic problem is that the policy is a bad one.
Paradoxically, it is anti-American speakers in pro-American countries whose liberty is crucial to American security. Ali Hatar and others should be free to speak their minds and, if they desire, to elect a government that is less charitable toward the United States. This might be inconvenient. It is, however, far preferable to the alternative trajectory, which is well known to us from observing the biographies of the intellectual and organizational leaders of al-Qaeda and related movements. Down this other path,
Arabs angered by their governments' policies realize that in order to change the policies, they must change the government. By force. But they can't overpower local governments backed by the many resources of the United States. So they decide to take the fight straight to the far enemy -- us.Anti-American dictatorships, the ones Bush is willing to actually criticize and that Rice has labeled "outposts of tyranny," don't give us much trouble in this regard. The governments of Syria and Iran have both been more willing to cooperate with us against al-Qaeda than we've been willing to cooperate with them. These governments' bad policies don't spawn hatred and resentment of America, because everyone knows we're not propping them up. And, perhaps most important of all, in the wake of the Iraq War, there isn't really anything we can do about these countries' internal politics except wait patiently and hope for the best.
It's our friends that give us trouble, and it's our friends that we might be able to do something about. A president who understood the implications of his own words could see that.
Matthew Yglesias is a Prospect staff writer.
Previewing Jordan’s National Agenda: Strategies for Reform
Previewing Jordan’s National Agenda: Strategies for Reform
By
Samer Abu LibdehSeptember 16, 2005
PolicyWatch #1032
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/King Abdullah II’s latest domestic reform initiative for Jordan—the National Agenda Committee—will soon release a series of major political recommendations. These proposals will provide the Jordanian government with a detailed framework to guide the reform process in coming years.
Background
The National Agenda initiative was launched in February 2005 after reasonably free and fair elections were held in Iraq and the Palestinian Authority, Jordan’s eastern and western neighbors. The fact that elections could proceed in such insecure and politically troubled areas raised both international and domestic pressure on the Jordanian regime to quicken its own pace of reform, especially given its relative security and stability. T
he idea of the National Agenda is to set guidelines, programs, and strategies to reform Jordan’s political, educational, social welfare, and state financial systems over the next decade, outlining policies to which successive governments would be committed. Abdullah told a number of parliamentarians at a Royal Court meeting shortly after the launch of the program that “future laws to regulate political and social life will be based on the recommendations and guidelines of [the National Agenda’s] subcommittees.”
The National Agenda is being drafted by a twenty-six–member panel
(TWENTY SEVEN- az) consisting of
elite (?!?!) segments of Jordanian society, such as former ministers, loyal politicians, heads of tribes, academics, and businesspeople.
All members hail from wealthy families that have had close ties with the palace and historically benefited from its loyalty to the regime. Abdullah’s plan, evidently, is to strike a balance between the reform-oriented segments of the core elite and the conservative tribal and security apparatus, which is widely represented among the current parliament and has stymied other attempts at structural change.
No technocrats, opposition figures, or middle class leaders are represented on the panel - (How about Taher Al Masri, Theib Marji, Nawal Fa'aouri and last but not least, Abdel Latif Arabiyat?!?!?! - az)
The committee, which was established by royal decree without parliamentary consultation or approval - (There was no need for parliamentary approval nor consultation yet, the Steering Committee has 8 members from the upper and lower house of the Parliament, 30% of the committee) has devised work plans for its subcommittees that address the eight aspects of its mission. These subcommittees are expected to produce not only general ideas for change but to offer specific suggestions for which government agencies should be directed to implement programs, timetables for implementation, and estimated costs of implementation. Despite the secrecy surrounding its discussions, the panel’s chairman, deputy prime minister Marwan Muasher, said earlier that the National Agenda, unlike previous nationwide reform schemes from Abdullah’s first half-decade on the throne, “will avoid loose slogans and rhetoric to embrace down-to-earth, feasible solutions for problems impeding the kingdom’s attempts to socioeconomic reform and democratization.” After a nationwide address in August, during which the king showed his disgruntlement with the slow pace of reform by refusing to shake hands with ministers and parliamentarians in attendance, he insisted, “
The National Agenda will lead the country into a new age where there is more press freedom, health insurance for all, an independent judiciary, a more politically active public, political pluralism, active and powerful parties with clear-cut platforms, and empowered women and youth.”
Economic Growth Is Job One
At the top of the list of Jordan’s challenges is economic growth. In order to boost domestic revenues, create more jobs and reach economic self-reliance, Jordan needs to achieve and maintain an annual growth rate of 9-10 percent over the next decade. Indeed, Muasher has warned that merely maintaining the existing relatively high 7 percent growth rate will produce nearly a 50 percent increase in the official rate of unemployment over the next ten years, from 14 percent to 20 percent.
With the support of two hundred experts, the panel members and its subcommittees have reportedly come up with an array of specific economic recommendations. They urge greater focus on small and medium-sized projects, which currently employ only a third of the workforce. By contrast, the report will point out, in advanced countries small- and medium-sized enterprises employ two-thirds of the workforce.
There are several longterm obstacles to achieving this level of growth. These include rising budget deficits. According to recent reports, the deficit will rise to $600 million by the end of 2005, due to a 19.7 percent increase in government expenditures. The high current spending was attributed to a surge in fuel subsidies as a result of increased oil prices, as well as to high wages and officials’ travel expenses. At the same time, foreign assistances dropped by 40 percent during the first seven months of 2005 compared to the same period the previous year. Despite all the grants and loans that floated the Jordanian economy, between 15 and 30 percent of Jordanians live below a poverty line of $439 per capita. While large chunks of foreign aid flowed to huge infrastructure projects (e.g., water resource management, social sector development, and public-sector reform), little was directed to bolstering small and medium enterprises, which traditionally are the backbone of the Jordanian economy. In addition, a considerable slice of foreign aid went to finance the budget deficit, rather than supporting job-creating initiatives.
While Jordan has registered important good news in terms of the explosive growth in exports from the Qualifying Industrial Zones—which were $930 million in 2004 and are expected to reach nearly $1.2 billion in 2005—many see little impact on Jordanians’ standard of living. Many of these projects rely on highly skilled labor from East Asia instead of native Jordanians, while the manufacturing is based in remote areas where the benefits of local growth extend to relatively few people. Also, revenues from these exports are limited to a small circle of Jordanian businessmen who early on established contacts with Israeli counterparts before the eruption of current Palestinian intifada. Neither Jordanian officials nor the chamber of commerce have encouraged attempts to build more cooperative relations with Israelis. Moreover, very few entrepreneurs have reinvested the revenues of their textile business in the underprivileged areas surrounding the zones.
Key Components of Political Reform
The National Agenda Committee is expected to recommend comprehensive structural modifications to Jordan’s current election law and political parties law, which previously hindered attempts at mass political participation. The longterm success of these initiatives is related to number of domestic indications:
An increased level of participation in political life. The vast majority of Jordanians play little role in the nation’s political life. With the exception of the Islamic Action Front party, Jordan’s political parties were founded by the state bureaucratic elite. Some represented efforts to build parties of the regime, which would be used to strengthen existing state institutions under the guise of democracy. However, neither these parties nor leftist or Arab nationalist parties ever succeeded in attracting significant popular support. A new initiative that somehow triggers increased participation from the grassroots and inhabitants of high-density urban areas—commonly called “the silent majority”—would represent a major boost for the kingdom’s political life before upcoming parliamentary elections.
Practical steps in strengthening free media and freedom of expression. Jordan’s official news agency, Petra, currently holds a monopoly on official news and information emanating from the palace. The current press law places limits on journalistic investigation and reporting.
Additionally, a 2005 poll by the University of Jordan’s Center for Strategic Studies revealed that the vast majority of Jordanians still fear retribution against themselves, their families, and their livelihoods should they offer any criticism of the government, let alone the monarchy. While the conservative old guard is still in control of the influential state mass media, an in-house debate about future editorial policies and existing practices of self-censorship would be a major step forward.
Amendments to the election law. While the king is expected to dissolve the current parliament, elected in 2003, and call for early elections, the system of elections is a major issue of concern. Many Jordanians do not like the current “single non-transferable vote” system, widely known as “one person, one vote.” Some contend that the electoral districts are unfairly drawn and fail to provide representation in proportion to population. Others urge the return to a mixed electoral system, giving voters multiple representatives in parliament. This could mean the introduction of a two-tier system in which voters cast ballots for representatives for their territorial district as well as for a nationwide political party list.
Conclusion
Jordan still has a long way to go before it develops into a Moroccan-style constitutional monarchy, let alone one in the European mode. Nevertheless, it has adopted a substantial set of national reforms, especially in economic, legal, and administrative matters, and has embarked on a significant democratization process, particularly when viewed in the regional context. The National Agenda initiative appears to reflect a recognition that the regime needs to find a way to overcome opposition to further reform from among its traditional allies—tribal elements and Islamists. The depth of the changes the National Agenda Committee proposes—and the regime’s persistence in carrying them out—will determine whether Jordan continues down the path of hopeful reform or whether the forces of reaction succeed in stymieing further progress. Samer Abu Libdeh, a Jordanian scholar, is a Fulbright visiting research fellow at The Washington Institute.
Freedom's call squeezes ally Jordan by THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
The question is no longer whether governments will evolve, but how and when....... AZFreedom's call squeezes ally JordanA Question of Democracy: TRIBUNE SPECIAL REPORT
By Evan Osnos
Chicago Tribune
June 10, 2005
One morning last spring, two men from Jordan's Interior Ministry arrived unannounced at the headquarters of the Islamic Action Front, the country's most powerful opposition party. They said they were there because the group was neglecting an important duty: to hang a portrait of King Abdullah II on the wall. Reluctantly, party officials went to the bazaar and picked out a large, gold-framed color photo of the smiling king.
"I realized then that the distance between us and reform is very long," recalled party leader Hamza Mansour.
Jordan enjoys a reputation as an oasis in the Middle East--more peaceful, modern and stable than its neighbors. But behind its pledges of reform, Jordan is still the sort of society where political parties are told what to hang on the walls.
In this kingdom, as in much of the Middle East, entrenched elites and their fear of free expression have stalled reform. Abdullah, a close U.S. ally, calls for regional democratization yet has shown little inclination to grant his own citizens the right to change their government. As the Arab world churns with pressure for change, Jordan's halting trek toward democracy offers a model and a warning of what may be ahead for other countries.Beginning with the invasion of Iraq and his public commitment to "freedom and democracy," President Bush is hinging his foreign policy record on a dramatic overhaul of the Middle East. Arab reformers and dissidents are seizing the moment to speak with new force. But what is the drive for democratization actually producing? A tour of the frontier of Arab reform in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Jordan found clear and unprecedented pressure for change but little evidence that today's rulers will willingly cede power.
In country after country, Arab leaders are loosening their grip as slowly as possible. The fragile drive for democracy could yet succumb to backlashes by military strongmen or, less likely, revolts by Muslim extremists. But
by many measures, the Middle East appears to have entered a new phase in which the question is no longer whether governments will evolve, but how.
Like other countries,
Jordan faces a reckoning point: After failing for years to deliver pledged reform, top officials are vowing to jump-start democratization, acknowledging that their failure is fueling support for alternative visions such as militant Islam."What I can tell you is that most, if not all people, are not happy with the present system," said a senior Jordanian official who requested anonymity. "
The king has made it clear that there is no going back on this process, once it is begun--and it has begun."
That pledge holds high stakes for the White House. Bush declared in January that he would demand "free dissent and the participation of the governed" from "every ruler and every nation." Yet he has refrained from criticizing his ally, Abdullah, even after the king snubbed Bush in April 2004 by canceling a high-profile meeting in protest of the president's support for Israeli policy.
Day by day, regimes across the Middle East are challenging the depth of Bush's commitment, and they may see his handling of Jordan as a test of his resolve, said Marc Lynch, a Middle East specialist at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass.
"
It's easy to call for democracy in Syria because they're `the enemy,' but what are you doing with a country that is almost completely dependent on you politically and economically?" Lynch said. "
If you're an Egyptian or a Saudi, you could start to wonder how seriously you have to take the U.S."
A short spring
More than four months after dramatic Iraqi and Palestinian elections stirred inklings of a thaw in Arab politics, that impression is no less distinct. But the scene on the ground is far more complicated than the images of protests and ballot boxes suggest.
The pattern from Damascus to Riyadh to Cairo is a cycle of opening up and cracking down. Emboldened reformers are pushing the boundaries and embattled regimes are striking back, all of it chronicled in unprecedented detail on the Internet and satellite channels such as Qatar-based Al Jazeera.
The kings, princes and presidents are walking an increasingly difficult line, with fear of their own restive publics and an activist White House on one side, and the fear of losing power on the other.
With little fanfare on May 15, a court in the Saudi capital of Riyadh sentenced three prominent liberals to prison terms ranging from 6 to 9 years. To reformers in Saudi Arabia and across the Middle East, it was a grim coda to a spring that began with high hopes. The Saudi defendants--poet Ali al-Dimeeni and professors Abdullah al-Hamed and Matrouk al-Faleh--were arrested a year earlier after they helped circulate a petition asking the royal family for an independent judiciary, legislative elections and the creation of a constitutional monarchy with less power reserved for the king.
Ten other reformers also arrested were released after they agreed to drop their demands. The final three refused, and they were charged with sowing dissent, disobeying the king and breeding instability.
The sentence stunned Saudi scholars and reformers who had expected the men to receive only a symbolic punishment. Just weeks earlier the kingdom had seemed ripe for change as Saudi voters in February took part in the kingdom's first nationwide elections. But last month's sentence sent a chilling reminder of the penalties for speaking out.
Saudi Arabia's erratic line on democracy is not unique. In Syria, President Bashar Assad has vowed to modernize his government. On Thursday he used a key Baath Party conference to propose legal reforms that would permit some opposition parties and relax parts of Syria's strict emergency laws.
Yet Assad's regime also is cracking down on critics. On May 24, authorities rounded up eight members of a pro-democracy group called the Jamal Attasi Forum, accusing them of disseminating material from the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization banned in Syria since it challenged the regime in the early 1980s. They were released after a week in custody.
In years past, arrests like those would have gone all but unnoticed outside of Syria. Not anymore.
The evolution is televised
Midway through a recent Al Jazeera talk show about Syria, a woman identifying herself as Umm Al-Tahir called in to tell the world her story. Syria, she said, had recently permitted some political exiles to return. Her husband, an Islamist named Yasin Ibrahim al-Sheikh, had returned to Damascus in April from exile in Qatar. After two days he was told to report to an intelligence office, and that, she said, was the last she had heard from him.
Hearing her story, the Al Jazeera host turned to his guest, a senior Syrian Baath Party official, and declared: "You heard what the lady said. How long will the persecution of Syrian citizens continue?"
That exchange, televised live to Al Jazeera's estimated 50 million viewers worldwide, vividly illustrated how technology is amplifying the democratic rumblings in today's Middle East. That show was one of a series of spirited Al Jazeera debates that week about Syria's political future, debates that were impossible before the explosion of Arab satellite channels a decade ago.
Syria is not the only regime in the spotlight. Any given day, Al Jazeera or Dubai-based Al-Arabiya will showcase anti-regime protests on the streets of Cairo, sit-ins in Beirut or voters going to the polls in local Palestinian elections.
After months of jousting with Washington over their coverage of Iraq, Arab channels have emerged as the improbable midwives of Bush's pro-democracy initiative, with greater popularity than any U.S. initiative. High-tempo talk shows such as "Opposite Direction" and "Without Limits" feature unflinching debates on issues as diverse as the failures of Arab economies to keep pace with the world and the legitimacy of protest movements in Egypt, Kuwait and Bahrain.
"
Events in Jordan can't be isolated from what's happening in Egypt or elsewhere," said Lynch, the Williams College expert, "
because Al Jazeera covers events throughout the Arab world as a single Arab story."
Al Jazeera correspondents have been banned from a growing number of Arab autocracies, including Algeria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. Al Jazeera's newest focus, it seems, is Egypt, where it is chronicling the government's growing standoff with groups calling for democratic change. In May an Al Jazeera crew was detained when it tried to cover a public meeting of Egypt's judges, who have vowed to boycott elections unless they receive greater independence. Weeks later, cameras were on hand May 25 when pro-government demonstrators attacked critics of President Hosni Mubarak in downtown Cairo. The episode prompted a rebuke from Bush.
Jordan has made no moves to ban Al Jazeera, though it recognizes the channel's power. On March 7, Al Jazeera reported that Jordanian police had barred a network cameraman from covering a protest staged by the government's most vocal critic, its powerful network of trade unions.
The man behind that protest is Wael Saqqa, an intense 48-year-old architect who heads 14 professional syndicates, equivalent to labor unions, with 150,000 members. His cell phone rarely stops ringing. His bulletin board lists a packed schedule of upcoming speeches and meetings. His office suite, with two secretaries and a constant stream of visitors, has the crisp bustle of a legislator's headquarters.
He holds no public office, yet he is overtly political: an Islamist opposed to relations with Israel and correctly confident that he holds more power than anyone in Jordan's feeble parliament.
"The syndicates," he said, "are the people's only channel for democracy."
For that reason Saqqa poses a dilemma for Jordan's reformers, who want to get unofficial politicians such as Saqqa out of politics in order to build a real legislature rooted in law and accountability.Yet as they struggle to rein in Saqqa and others, Jordanian leaders have repeatedly curbed free expression and sparked criticism at home and abroad.
Law aimed at unions
When the unions tried to convene a meeting in January to discuss Iraq's elections, authorities ordered them to suspend all political activities and police dispersed their attempt at a protest.
Then the government proposed a tough union law that would bar them from discussing "non-professional issues" without government permission, and would alter their structure to reduce the power of Islamists. Opposition parties and rights advocates were alarmed. In April, New York-based Human Rights Watch said the proposed law "calls into question the government's willingness to fulfill its commitments" to democratization.
The regime already was facing criticism over another free-speech issue. In December, Jordanian engineer and activist Ali Hattar gave a fiery lecture calling for a boycott of U.S. goods to protest American policies in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Hattar was arrested the next day and later sentenced to 3 months in jail for "slandering" the government by saying Jordan uses American weapons against its own people.
The cases can seem out of place in
Jordan, a country that by all appearances is a prime candidate for liberalization. Clean and efficient, Amman is a modern capital comfortable with the West, and Jordan is a member of the World Trade Organization.
Yet the kingdom has had a rocky relationship with democracy. After ascending to the throne in 1999 following his late father, King Hussein, Abdullah suspended parliament, saying turmoil in the Palestinian territories and Iraq made it unwise to hold elections. By the time he reconvened lawmakers in June 2003, he had issued more than 130 new laws by decree.
Though Jordan's rights record is better than that of most Arab states, the regime still silences critics, such as Toujan Faisal, a former lawmaker who was imprisoned for four months in 2002 after accusing the prime minister of corruption. The U.S. State Department, in its annual human-rights report in February, highlighted allegations of torture and arbitrary arrests by Jordan's vast security structure, and noted strict media laws that can land a journalist in jail for up to three years.
When a Jordanian business magazine polled 200 randomly selected citizens about democracy last year, 81 percent said they believed they could not publicly criticize the regime without fearing government reprisal.
Most reform-minded Jordanians don't argue for an abrupt shift to full democracy, which would probably hand power only to well-organized parties such as the Islamic Action Front. But after years of unfulfilled hopes, many believe that the fear of moving too fast has stalled even modest changes.
"
I don't think we're progressing," said Fares Braizat, polling director at the Center for Strategic Studies in Amman. "
We have faced stagnation since '93, and all the talk we hear from the king about [political] development and liberalization--at the end of the day, it has not been delivered."
Urgent reformToday, Jordan's leaders are straining to make a break from the past. Stung by criticism of his handling of the Hattar case and trade unions, Abdullah this spring tossed out his prime minister, Cabinet and intelligence chief and named a new lineup.
The king is now pinning hope on a 10-year reform plan, a "national agenda" crafted with citizens' input, to be unveiled in September. In particular, it is likely to bring changes to Jordan's controversial election laws, which political rivals say favor supporters of the Hashemite royal family while dampening the influence of urban voters of Palestinian origin, who are said to make up more than half of Jordan's 5.8 million people.
"
We are not looking for a rhetorical document," said the senior official. "
We are looking for initiatives that have clear timelines and performance indicators associated with that so we convince people we are serious."
Even compared with its neighbors, Jordan feels particular pressure to open up. Sandwiched between the turmoil in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, Jordanians are increasingly disenchanted with their leaders' ties to the U.S. and Israel and are hungry for a way to express it.
"Since 2003 there has been a recognition that if you don't open up you will feel the wrath of public indignation about Palestine and Iraq," said Joost Hiltermann, an Amman-based analyst for the International Crisis Group.
Jordanians have joined Iraq's insurgency, most notably Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who spent time in Jordanian prisons and Afghanistan before emerging as a leader of a militant faction affiliated with Al Qaeda.
Sixteen suspected Islamic militants are on trial on charges they plotted to attack the U.S. and Israeli Embassies in Amman. To keep the number of such militants from growing, mainstream Islamists such as the union leader Saqqa say the only solution is give today's angry young Muslims a legal, democratic channel to express themselves. And in a measure of deepening public frustration, that idea is even drawing supporters from those who do not back Islamists or the unions they control.
"The only way for Jordan to survive is to democratize and empower its people and have true public participation in decision-making," said Ayman Safadi, editor of the liberal Al-Ghad newspaper. "The king needs to lead that process."
With his well tailored suit and master's degree from Baylor University in Texas, Safadi could hardly be further from Amman's fundamentalists, yet he argues that Jordan cannot afford to silence them.
"In 1996, you had 13 Arabic satellite TV stations. In 2004, you had 176, and the number increases every day, so people are becoming more aware of their lives," he said. "And regimes are becoming more aware that the only way to confront the bin Laden-like ideologies is to provide people the space to express themselves. Nobody can stand in the face of this force."
An uncertain future
It is tempting to read the drama in today's Middle East as a decisive turn in history--a twilight for tyranny on par with the end of fascism or the demise of the Soviet empire. It could well prove to be. But on the ground, the story is decidedly unfinished.
Not one of the Arab world's 22 autocrats appears ready to embrace the hallmark of democracy: the people's right to change their leaders. Even in Jordan, the moderate, pro-Western king holds fast to his sweeping powers. He hires and fires the prime minister, the Cabinet and the intelligence chief. He has the right to dissolve parliament, set public policy, appoint the upper house of the legislature and name the mayors of all 99 municipalities.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.S. has vowed to remake the political map from Morocco to Afghanistan. So far it has tried force, money and rhetoric with mixed results. Military might deposed Saddam Hussein but unleashed a bitter insurgency. Bankrolling Arab reformers with targeted aid has given them a voice but damaged their reputation at home. Soaring speeches in Washington have put Arab leaders on edge but inspired few on the Arab street.
A consensus is emerging among analysts here and abroad that the West's greatest tool may be its moral clarity: the willingness to defend the rights of its opponents with the same fervor it has shown in standing up for democrats. The U.S. has long supported moderate Islamists who have palatable ideas if no public following. But that strategy is increasingly academic. Some of the most important players in tomorrow's Middle East are likely to be unmitigated Islamists, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Dawa Party and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
"The challenge that Islamist organizations pose to democracy cannot be met by befriending moderate but marginally important groups," writes Marina Ottaway, a democracy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It can only be met by dealing with the mainstream, powerful organizations that will determine the future of Middle East politics."
Will they use the democratic system to advance policies at odds with the U.S. and Israel? Some will try, but Bush is betting that bringing them into the democratic system will blunt their extremism, just as it has moderated Islamist parties in Turkey, Morocco and Jordan. A growing share of the Arab world may agree with him.
"For me?" said Braizat, the Jordanian political scientist. "Give me democracy, though that means the Islamists may win for a while. For democracy, it's a gamble I'm willing to take."
Yesterday, 35 days ago…. Civil War Breaks out in Jordan
1970: Civil war breaks out in JordanBBC ONLINE
I have come across a very interesting paper on 'AMMAN 1970, A MEMOIR' by Colonel (US Army retired) Norvell De Atkine, which is the first in a series of memoirs on the Middle East in the 1960s and 1970s. Norvell de Atkine was one of the first Middle East experts trained by the U.S. military. He attended the American University in Beirut, became a U.S. military attache in Jordan, and spent many years working in the Arab world - PLEASE EMAIL IF YOU WANT A PDF COPYThe Jordanian army has launched a full-scale attack on Palestinian guerrillas in towns all over Jordan following weeks of sporadic fighting between the two sides. King Hussein's generals ordered tanks into the capital Amman at dawn using artillery and rockets against mortar fire.
The strategic town of Zerka, that controls supply routes to the north of the country, was also the scene of heavy fighting.
There have been claims and counterclaims of victory. Amman Radio said the Jordanian army controlled three-quarters of the capital while Palestinian sources said they controlled the whole city, where Palestinians make up 70% of the population.
Amman airport and the country's borders are closed, and telecommunications lines are down.
New military government
King Hussein's troops are reported to have stormed the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. But the whereabouts of PLO leader Yasser Arafat are as yet unknown, although he is believed to be in Syria which has supported the Palestinian cause.
Following the 1967 war with Israel, Jordan lost the West Bank of the Jordan River. Thousands of Palestinians fled into Jordan, swelling the refugee population to two million. From their new base, the PLO launched military operations against Israel and drew bloody reprisals that killed and injured Jordanians.
The recent multiple hijacking of western airliners forced to land in Jordan by Palestinian militants has made the king even more determined to crack down on the guerrillas. King Hussein condemned the hijackers as "the shame of the Arab world" in an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro earlier this week. He also warned that if the PLO guerrillas did not respect recent ceasefire agreements "they would suffer the consequences".
He added: "
Every day Jordan sinks a little more. There must be peace - or war."
Yesterday he formed a new government of military hardliners led by Brigadier Mohammed Daoud in a move described by Mr Arafat as a "fascist military coup".
For their part, Palestinians are angered by King Hussein's recent involvement in Middle East peace moves with Israel initiated by the United States.
The US Defence Secretary, Melvin Laird, has said that if necessary all 300 US citizens in Jordan will be airlifted out. He also suggested America may provide military support to King Hussein's government if the situation worsened and said some units of the Sixth Fleet had moved closer to the area in the last 24 hours.
