The Myth of Jordan’s Opposition

Some believe that the number of Jordanians in the opposition movement can be counted on the fingers of one hand, given the number of signs displayed during King Abdullah’s visit to the White House. The demonstrators’ presence has put pressure on the king, especially given that in the moment of his arrival to the White House, the demonstrators weren’t there. This only goes to show that their behavior is not a grassroots movement.

This propaganda is meant to show that there is Jordanian opposition abroad and that it means to send a message to the U.S. administration by embarrassing the king in front of the White House.

Basically, Jordan’s opposition movement has, so far, done nothing but talk and left behind only slogans; it’s inconceivable to think that the opposition has been hijacked internally. The Obama administration will not listen to the posturing of a group of Jordanians near the White House when compared with what Jordanians are saying at home.

This media snapshot is billed as being much more important than it actually is. It’s striking that the U.S.-based Arab satellite channel promoted the coverage of the Jordanian sit-in in the U.S.; the channel does not focus solely on Arab, American or foreign media, but nonetheless was urged to cover the protest and opposition press conference. In the end, who benefited from this?

The way this news is presented impacts its meaning. The televised broadcast of a Jordanian sit-in abroad will communicate that the king was embarrassed right in front of Washington, which in turn embraces the Jordanian opposition, and that there are changes ahead — a greatly exaggerated conclusion.

The king and the prime minister will speak to Congressional committees about the reforms in Jordan; while there may appear to be a breakdown in communication, the alliance between Washington and Amman has not been disrupted. Most likely the Congressional committees will pressure the U.S. administration more than expected on behalf of Amman, seeing as they understand the context of change in Jordan and how such change is being carried out.

The king both addressed and met with hundreds of members of the Jordanian community at the embassy in Washington. Speaking to both Jordanians abroad and the U.S. administration, he asserted that Jordan’s reforms are key and that he will continue to defend his position.

In cases where foreign embassies in Amman receive information on the situation in Jordan, they also hear about Jordanians’ grievances. The Jordanian state news channel has insinuated that they do not want reform, and foreign embassies have then cabled these reports to their home countries.

Change does not come as a result of foreign interference. Some reformers in Amman and abroad, seeing the U.S. administration and Congress facing off, think policy changes are drafted through embassies. Currently, the relationship between Amman and Washington is now much more complicated and made more than a few people concerned.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is known as a supporter of rapid reform in Jordan, perhaps because she was responsible for presenting the first reports on Jordan to the U.S. administration. To be sure, no matter what the differences of opinion are between the president, the Secretary of State and Congress, they ultimately will not lead to the sponsorship of the Jordanian opposition abroad or increased pressure on Amman.

These are the Americans’ observations regarding the situation in Jordan; however, it won’t result in the end of the Amman-Washington alliance or a coup in Jordan.

Not a drop of Jordanian blood was spilled during the recent unrest. The Jordanian people themselves do not agree on a single prescription for reform, which ranges from quick to long-term plans; nonetheless, Jordan will not succeed through creative chaos.

Bearing in mind the attempt to publicly embarrass the king in front of the White House, this is, quite frankly, an unfortunate incident of bullying from abroad. What can we say about the hundreds who greeted the king at the embassy? What about the thousands in the U.S. who spoke up to express that the incident in front of the White House neither represents nor impacts them? In Jordan, political legitimacy accommodates all differences and does not bribe politicians abroad.

Who would want to create an opposition abroad in order to hijack Jordan, and who, furthermore, would accept backing from foreigners? The opposition’s slogan is that the U.S. administration makes the decisions in Jordan, yet under scrutiny, their slogan can just as quickly be turned on its head.