Doc's Talk: JORDAN'S FUTURE CHALLENGES

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

JORDAN'S FUTURE CHALLENGES

Juan Jose Escobar Stemmann *

For years, King Abdallah has successfully steered Jordan's ship through the turbulent waters of a tempestuous regional context and a complex economic and social situation within the country. However, the country has not been immune to the wave of unrest sweeping the region following the revolts that toppled President Ben Ali in Tunisia and President Mubarak in Egypt, and the king will have to institute greater and more fundamental reforms in order to maintain the basic pact between the monarchy and the people and to prevent Jordanians from beginning to question the legitimacy of his rule. Since his accession to the throne in 1999, King Abdallah has successfully steered Jordan’s ship through the turbulent waters of a tempestuous regional context and a complex economic and social situation within the country. The expansion of the economic reforms process agreed upon with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has enabled Jordan to modernize its economic structure, post significant growth rates, and weather the storm of the international economic crisis. Nevertheless, the improvement of the macroeconomic situation has not prevented a series of protests denouncing rising commodity prices and rampant unemployment.

The road to greater political openness has been conditioned by a wide range of external factors. The second intifada, the U.S. military intervention in Iraq, and Hamas’ rise to power in Gaza have all influenced decisionmaking and provided arguments to those within the regime who feel that further democratization could jeopardize the country’s stability. However, Jordan has not been immune to the wave of unrest sweeping the region following the revolts that toppled President Ben Ali in Tunisia and President Mubarak in Egypt; the regime will likely need to start considering real reforms in order to curtail future opposition. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a sword of Damocles for the regime in Jordan, where almost half of the population is of Palestinian origin and not all are well integrated. Any development in the conflict has immediate repercussions in Jordan. The Hamas coup in Gaza and the presence of militants close to Hamas within the Jordanian Islamist movement’s leadership has led the regime to change its attitude toward the Islamists, whom it accuses of radicalizing their anti-state discourse. Moreover, since 2002, Jordan has been targeted by al-Qaida in several terrorist attacks. Although the threat is still latent, effective action by the Jordanian security forces, the death of the al-Qa’ida leader in Iraq, Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, and the steps taken to combat Salafi rhetoric have curtailed the capacity of Salafi networks to strike on Jordanian soil.

A MODERNIZED ECONOMY

The early years of King Abdallah’s rule have been characterized by the development of policies focused on economic reform and Jordan’s integration in the global market. The major economic crisis in 1989 forced Jordan to sign an agreement for a structural adjustment program with the IMF in order to cut its debt and public deficit, control inflation, and set in motion a package of reforms aimed at modernizing the country’s economic structure. The removal of subsidies, the privatization process, and the trimming of the public sector have also affected the social support bases on which the regime relies, giving rise to new forces of power and influence.

Jordan’s economic problems were compounded as a result of the First Gulf War in 1991. King Hussein’s support for Iraq led to a rift with the Gulf nations, which until then had been Jordan’s biggest financial backers, and also to the return of 300,000 Jordanian workers (mostly Palestinians), a situation that triggered increased unemployment and higher inflation. Until the outbreak of the Second Gulf War in 2003, Iraq had financed virtually all of Jordan’s energy needs. The Jordanian economy was thus dealt a serious blow by the conflict in Iraq, which also affected vital sectors including transport and tourism as well as worker remittances. However, the mass return of workers also led to a significant increase (estimated at 1 billion USD) in investment in small and medium-sized businesses, which injected new life into Amman’s economy.[1]

At the time of King Abdallah’s accession to the throne in 1999, the economy was still in deep crisis, and Jordan had to contend with a particularly difficult regional context. Between 2000 and 2003, the country was affected by the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada, the U.S. war on terrorism, and the military intervention in Iraq. Aware of the need to expand the economic reforms agreed upon with the IMF, the king appointed Ali Abu Raghib as prime minister in June 2000. Raghib led the reform process until 2003. He passed a series of laws to help open up the country’s economy to trade, to integrate Jordan into the World Trade Organization (WTO), and to create Qualified Industrial Zones to attract foreign investment and to set up joint ventures with Israel to access the U.S. market. The suspension of the elections scheduled for November 2001 facilitated matters for the government, which was able to implement its policy without the parliament.

Despite initial fears regarding its consequences for the Jordanian economy, the U.S. military intervention in Iraq brought some advantages for the country. Jordan recuperated the trust of the Gulf monarchies, which now finance the country’s energy needs[2] and are the main destination for Jordanian labor, goods, and services. Trade with Iraq was renewed and direct U.S. aid has grown considerably. Since 2003, Jordan has received an average of $750 million, nearly half of it military aid.[3] As of 2010, some 700,000 Iraqis were living in Jordan as a result of the war in Iraq. A large proportion of Iraq’s bourgeoisie have moved to Amman until the security situation in Iraq improves. Their presence has helped boost the real estate and retail sectors. The high numbers of Iraqi entrepreneurs in Amman and Iraq’s relative normalization have also provided new opportunities for Jordanian firms. The banking sector and the transport, aluminum, cement, and phosphate industries have all benefited from the stabilization of the situation in Iraq.[4]

Since 2006, Jordan has further facilitated investment in the country and has continued its privatization program. The investment promotion law passed in 2006 encouraged the arrival of new investors and helped the economy grow at an average of seven percent GDP between 2005 and 2008. Exports have also grown, with Saudi Arabia and the European Union being the main destinations. Moreover, the Jordanian authorities have used the revenue generated by assets sales during the privatizations to cut public debt. In 2008, the government ended petrol and gas subsidies in order to control the fiscal deficit.[5]

Jordan’s economy continued to post growth of 2.9 percent in 2009 despite the global recession. In order to tackle the crisis, the country has launched a series of infrastructure projects financed by public-private partnerships (PPPs). These include the construction of a nuclear power plant and two mega projects to supply the country with water. The Disi Water Project[6] is designed to pipe water to Amman, home to half the country’s population, from an aquifer close to the Saudi border, while the Red to Dead Project will pump water from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea.[7]

The economic forecast for 2010 was optimistic, with the economy expected to grow 4.1 percent, due to the resumption of worker remittances and the tourism industry. Yet the sudden rise in world commodity prices in December 2010 showed the failure of the economic model to convert the public sector-dominated economy into an investment-friendly haven for technology and services. Middle and lower income households have struggled due to the increasing cost of living and inflation, which reached more than 6 percent in 2010.

SOCIAL CHALLENGES

Notwithstanding the unquestionable successes achieved by the reform process, the country continues to face numerous economic and social challenges. The high fiscal deficit (almost 9 percent in 2010) and public debt (over 70 percent of GDP in 2010) threaten to slow growth. External aid remains vital and economic growth barely...

[READ FULL ARTICLE IN HTML]

[READ FULL ARTICLE IN PDF]

*Juan José Escobar Stemmann is a Spanish diplomat. He is a lecturer on Islamist movements at the Instituto Gutierrez Mellado for Defence Studies and the Spanish Diplomatic School in Madrid. His publications include “Muslims and Islamists in Spain” in Barry Rubin (ed.), Guide to Islamist Movements (M.E. Sharpe, 2009) and “The Crossroads of the Muslim Brothers in Jordan,” in Barry Rubin (ed.), The Muslim Brotherhood: The Organization and Policies of a Global Islamist Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).
MERIA Journal Staff

Publisher and Editor: Prof. Barry Rubin
Assistant Editor: Yeru Aharoni
MERIA is a project of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary University.
Site: http://www.gloria-center.org/ - Email: info@gloria-center.org

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk