Jordan keeps it going

Despite the American media's continuing success in ignoring the ongoing political struggles in Jordan, the battle over the draft professional associations law continues.  The Parliament dealt the government a setback yesterday by voting to reject the Interior Minister's demand that the legislation be granted "urgency" status.   Instead the bill is being sent to the Legislative Committee, which should by default provide the opportunity for the highly mobilized Associations to be heard.  If you want to know more, here's a Jordan Times story, at least until the link expires in a week; other than that, Google News offers not a single story except for Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, the Associations organized another large demonstration outside of the Parliament building against the law (al Hayat says thousands, UPI says hundreds). There were at least enough of them to clog up this busy street and to make it hard for the Parliamentarians to get into the building.  Most interestingly, according to al Hayat the associations adopted some of the language and techniques of the Lebanon protests - especially (as noted here a few days ago) waving large numbers of Jordanian flags.  The Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Action Front ostentatiously chose not to wave their own party banners, instead choosing the national flag - shades of Hizbollah the other day.   The appropriation of national symbols plays especially well in Jordan, especially because of Abdullah's "Jordan First" campaign.    One sympathetic member of Parliament, Mahmoud al Khurabsheh, told al Hayat that "refusing [the draft law] represents a bias towards Jordan and its national interests." 

According to various accounts, the protests demanded a general opening in public freedoms and for greater respect for civil society.  There were a number of signs and chants denouncing the "retreat from democracy" and warning against "infringements on human rights" and "violations of freedom."  As Rana Sabbagh, a journalist who has led the campaign against honor crimes, wrote in al Ghad, the associations crisis proves that "the heartbeat of the street has not yest stopped." 

Still waiting to see if President Bush has anything to say about this in his meetings with the King today.

UPDATE:  On a day that King Abdullah was coming to town, in the State Department Daily Press Briefing, the word Jordan did not come up at all. In the White House press gaggle, which focused heavily on public diplomacy and the Arab world,  here is the only exchange involving Jordan:

Q    Scott, you've got King Abdullah coming in.  He's the first Arab leader to visit since the President's speech about this perceived thaw in blocking democracy in the Middle East.  Will the President directly challenge him on that?

MR. McCLELLAN:  Well, I think that they will talk about the broader Middle East Initiative.  And that initiative is based on supporting greater freedom and democracy for the people of the region.  This is an issue, yes, that they do tend to discuss.  And I'm sure they will continue to talk about our bilateral relations, as well.  I think it's best that those discussions take place privately between the two leaders.  The President has a good relationship with King Abdullah.  He appreciates his support for the Middle East peace process.  He appreciates his commitment to work with us on -- and others in the region on the broader Middle East initiative.  And so he looks forward -- and he's also been a valued ally in the global war on terrorism.

Shorter version:

Q:  Is the President going to challenge the King on the state of democracy in Jordan?

A:  No.

Duly noted.

Comments

[Adam Barken]

Hi -- adore the site

Just wanted to ask -- do you really think the American media is "ignoring" Jordanian political struggles, in the sense that they have a reason to do so? Or do you not think that the ignoring is occuring because, well, the battle between Jordanian professional associations and parliament isn't exactly the story that Beirut is right now -- and probably will never be, if it stays as such.

I mean, I read you pretty much every day and even I have a hard time following exactly the internecine battles and rivalries at play here. As rivetting as the rejection "of the Interior Minister's demand that the legislation be granted "urgency" status" is and all, it ain't quite a half-million man (and woman) march.

But hey -- if the marches do start in Jordan, I will feel mighty well informed as to the background, thanks to you. All the best, and thanks for keeping the best Arab Media info site on the web. All this and a Cerebus fan too...amazing...seriously...

[praktike]

Oustez Aardvark, you may be intersted in this King Abdullah II interview, in case you hadn't seen it yet:

http://www.meforum.org/article/688

I think it will provide some insight into why Abdullah won't be challenged any time soon: the hope is that Jordan is following some sort of Qatar/Kuwait model, whereas in Egypt and Saudi Arabia the emphasis from Washington going forward is going to be on the political track to some extent. At least, that's what I see.

[Penta]

Praktike: Something you miss is that the associations have been, um...extremely hostile to the peace treaty with Israel and the peace process in general.

Ergo, the White House is going to give them the finger.

And with the stance they have on the above issues, so should we, IMHO.

[praktike]

Ah, yes, I'm well aware of that, but didn't see fit to mention it. Still, one wonders how long one can hold these people down for ... and to what end? Is there a "peace process?"

[Manumission]

Rana Sabbagh has started leading the campaign against honor crimes? When did that happen? When I was there, it was Rana Husseini, who was the only person writing about them for a long, long time. Rana Sabbagh was more interested in being friends with the Diwan press office than anything else. But your quote sounds just like her style: syrupy sweet but no substance.

Penta: In the nicest way possible... your comments about the Jordanian professional associations encapsulate everything that is wrong about the US's "democracy" campaign in the Middle East. Americans "want democracy" in the Mideast - but, at the same time, we should "give the finger" to civil society institutions, whose stands are actually representative of probably a majority of Jordanians (not to mention the 2 million Palestinian refugees there), because they don't like our beloved Israel. Give me a break.

[the aardvark]

Oh man, I'm a complete idiot. Got my Rana's confused. Rana Sabbagh is good too, but you are absolutely right. Serves me right for writing on a busy day.

[Anna in Cairo]

That's OK. I sometimes confuse Abu Aardvark with Abu Mazen! Could happen to anyone. :)

[Penta]

Manumission: Yeah, valid point.

But, and I ask consideration of what I'm about to say:

We need to decide: If we have to choose between democracy in the Arab world and a collapse of the peace treaties, which do we choose? This is the vicious problem. You cannot choose both in some situations. If you don't reject the Jordanian professional associations, the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty goes out the window.

If you do, you hold down democracy, but keep the peace treaty.

A similar process exists in Egypt. No democracy could have signed the peace treaty. A democratic Egypt would throw it out the window as one of its first acts, it's that hated.

I'm a recovering realist. If we drop the peace treaties, we basically give up every inch of progress for the last 10 years.

I'm unsure that is a good idea.

If we give up these peace treaties, we basically doom the ME to war for another 30 years. If you think there won't be a lot of Israelis who would feel burned and basically used, I beg to disagree. Most people would.

The PAs don't HAVE to *like* Israel. Neither does the Egyptian street. But, I think that unless we want to throw a Palestinian state and anything resembling ME peace off the table for a long time, we have to combine not squishing civil society with telling them that while they need not like Israel, they *cannot* throw away the peace treaties. Because, frankly, those peace treaties were not things you will get again if they die.