Arab Spring Specifically the Country of Jordan and Their Involvement

Arab Spring: Jordan

The Middle East is an area of the world that has always been prone to uprisings and political turmoil, but that can be said of almost any area of the world given a specific time period. In the Arab world, there has been a lot of political change over the last century because the major players have changed so many times. Originally, it was the British who held a great deal of the territory as a part of their extensive empire, but all of that land was returned after the Second World War. Then the governments were largely puppets of Western democracies like those in Egypt and Iran. But, the new trend (happening at least since the Shah was deposed) is that Islamist religious leaders are the true theocratic rulers of countries with a de facto head who is the face of the nation, but has little true power (as is the case in Iran presently). Recently, many Middle Eastern governments went through another round of changes that has rocked the world with its suddenness and furor. Arab peoples in many of the region's nations have risen up against their oppressive governments and have either ousted them, or, at the very least, brought them to task for their past abuses.

As people in other nations watched, especially those in the Western world, there were mixed reactions regarding the precarious outcomes. The United States has been one of the most hated governments among Middle Easterners for some time, so it is no surprise that the U.S. government would react with grave concern as the Middle Eastern (also including parts of Northern Africa) political map was rearranged. Because many of the deposed leaders had friendly relations with the U.S., even as the people were oppressed by the West-approved governments, it seemed like America was included in the downfall of these governments. Because of U.S. involvement with some of the Middle Eastern governments, there was a great deal of tension in Washington, and it is still difficult to say what relations will be like going forward. The Arab Spring hurt the U.S. And its Middle Eastern allies such as Jordan in significant ways. Intelligence gathering and economics are some of the areas affected by these coups, but there could be even more dire consequences for the countries still extant as friends of the West and for Western countries, particularly the U.S., as the dust clears in the region. Looking particularly at Jordan, the question becomes, can Western-sympathetic Middle Eastern nations continue to survive in lieu of what happened during the Arab Spring uprisings? This research paper takes a look at the antecedents of the uprisings as they relate to the question, and presents research regarding how economies and general world safety enterprises (such as intelligence gathering) have been effected by the events of the Arab Spring.

Overview

The Arab Spring was an event that seemed to take many by surprise, especially those governments that were most intimately involved, but the uprisings were not just spontaneous acts of defiance. The people in these countries had issues with their governments long before they took action against them starting in late 2010. Events that were within the government's ability to control had been neglected for years before the people finally had enough.

The first domino to fall was Tunisia and its leader, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. One writer described Tunisia as "The East Germany of Northern Africa" (Parsons). The regime was very dictatorial and controlling. The people of Tunisia had lived in a veritable police state for several decades because the leader of the country refused to be voted out of office. As with many of the Arab nations involved in the Arab Spring uprisings, Tunisia was supposedly a democratic nation that had free elections and some amount of freedoms for its people. However, this now seems to have just been window dressing meant to gain aid from Western nations that coveted allies in the Arab countries. The blinders that the U.S. And other countries wore were not issued to the people of Tunisia. While their leaders benefitted from positive relationships with Western democracies, they lived in poverty and were under constant watch.

Tunisia was the country that prompted much of the action that was to come because the people of these countries were necessarily worried about the outcomes of popular revolt. The leaders of the resistance movements were under no illusions that there would be peaceful turnovers of power. It was expected that the state controlled media and military would be firmly in the pocket of leaders, and that it would be very difficult to exact the change that they sought. Men like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt had been in power for more than 30 years and they were reluctant to relinquish the power and prestige that had benefitted them so greatly. Thus, it would have seemed that the uprisings would have been somewhat tentative, but they were not. In Tunisia, it took only a very short time before the President stepped down, and though it took longer for Mubarak to leave, he did acquiesce with very little resistance. It was more than any of the leaders of resistance movements could have hoped for, and protesters in other countries took note of the freedom that had been gifted to the people of these two countries.

Of course, freedom came at a price, even from the initial participants of the Spring, but a much greater price was required of later entrants into the freedom foray. Libya, had been under the control of Muammar Gaddafi for more than a generation. He had been the bane of the U.S. At one time, but since the 1980's had become, if not an ally, at least much less of a problem (Hastings). However, his people were enflamed by what had happened on both their East and West borders and wanted the regime change they had seen in both Tunisia and Egypt. The problem was that Gaddafi was not willing to relinquish his power as easily. It took more than nine months for allied in-country rebel and NATO forces to stop Gaddafi, but the problem did not end with the death of the country's former leader. According to Max Hastings of the London Daily Mail

"It is extraordinarily difficult for a country with no democratic traditions and institutions, riven by tribal rivalries, to forge a new government and adopt peaceful co-existence. Every major town has its own rebel brigade, armed to the teeth, determined to keep its guns in its hands until the future becomes clear."

It seems that this is the issue that is plaguing many of the Western governments that are watching events that continue to unfold. What type of governments are replacing the ones that have been overthrown?

Another country that has been in civil war for more than a year now is Syria. The leader, Bashar Assad, has not agreed to any concessions despite the censure he has received from the Western nations that once supported him. The internal turmoil has meant the deaths of many of the dissidents, and it does not seem like there is to be any quick resolution (Platt).

Besides the major conflicts that have taken place there have been more minor ones in Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan, but these have not risen to the level of any of the others. There seems to be two reasons why these conflicts were initiated and continue. First, the primary architects of some of the turmoil is a group called the Muslim Brotherhood (de Borchgrave). This is a little known group of sometimes radical Islamists who are calling for the end of Western influence in the countries of Northern African and the Middle East. The belief is that the leaders of these Middle East/North Africa (MENA) nations think that they can do what they want as long as they have the financial backing of the Western world. Unfortunately, this has meant that the people are often neglected as the leaders amass great amounts of wealth. Even when the governments are supposedly democratic, they turn into dictatorships that give lip service to democratic ideals. The other issue is that among the citizens of these nations, there is very high unemployment. "MENA suffers from the world's highest jobless rates & #8230; unemployment remains largely a "youth phenomenon" -- reported at 40% in Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia and nearly 60% in Syria and Egypt -- hence the potential for further social tensions" (Siddiqi & Smith).It would seem that nations that are as oil rich as many of the MENA nations are would have low unemployment, or at the very least programs adequate to take care of the citizens. But this has not been the case. One of the issues for the Western nations is that they have been blamed for allowing this to happen as long as they received the oil and regional influence they required. Aside from the economic advantages that the U.S. And other Western nations have reaped from their relationship with certain MENA nations is the fact that they have been able to attain a small amount of supposed safety from relationships that they have fostered and from intelligence sources. Both economics and safety appear to be in jeopardy though.

Safety

There is a network of countries, called the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), formed in 1981 (Blanche "Club") which has recently sought to gather together a number of allies that can work to thwart the aims of organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The GCC has tried to get Jordan to join because the country is seen as one of the more stable forces in the region, and it has a long reputation as a West-friendly nation. Jordan is coveted as a friend because the country borders the biggest ally the U.S. has in the region (Israel) and another that is sometimes questionable in Saudi Arabia, but has been a support much of the time. However,

"Reformist and liberal currents fear the offer may be an opening for a military alliance aimed at countering Iran and the Arab Spring revolutions simultaneously & #8230; The reformist current also fears certain practical consequences as a result of Jordan joining the GCC: human rights (regarding women, minorities, and freedom of opinion and expression) could be infringed and the future of reform and democratic transformation in the country could be affected" (Blanche "Club").

In other words, Jordan wants to join the alliance, but they have some amount of trepidation in doing so. Some of the other members of the alliance are much more fanatical than Jordan, and they may want to press the country's government to enact laws that would enhance their adherence to Islam while restricting the freedoms that their people already enjoy. Jordan has to look at the issue from both points-of-view because they do not want to alienate the member nations or their people. Jordan is also in a quandary because its people see the rush to join the GCC and its continued good relations with the U.S. As problematic.

The issue right now is that even the allies that the U.S. has gathered are skeptical because of the response the U.S. made during the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. "The way the Saudis view the upheaval of the Arab Spring, the U.S. abandonment of Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, to his fate in the face of a popular uprising against his regime was yet another sign that the U.S. could no longer be relied on" (Blanche "Club"). This reputation has ben spreading among the closest allies that the U.S. has had such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and it has not been enhanced by further inaction with Gaddafi and in Syria. The U.S. is allowing events to unfold without a great deal of action. The issue for the leaders in Saudi Arabia and Jordan is that they have close ties to the U.S., they are well-established monarchies, and, in the case of Jordan, there is a large amount of unemployment. These factors make it more dangerous for the countries going forward, but there are even more problems for the U.S. As related to their long time Middle Eastern allies.

The security and intelligence networks that the U.S. had worked for decades to establish in the Middle East has largely been compromised because of the Arab Spring uprisings. The intelligence gathering system was not necessarily used to spy on allies (Cotelesse), but they have been used to provide the warnings needed to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring in the West. The West relies on the intelligence systems of the Middle Eastern countries that it deals with, and the agents that they have been allowed to place in MENA countries because of the good relations that they have with their allies in the region.

One problem was marked by Ed Blanche of The Middle East (a Western newspaper) when he said that

"Jordan, a vital U.S. ally in the intelligence war, remains steadfast under King Abdullah II, as is Saudi Arabia under King Abdullah, whose wide-ranging but opaque intelligence establishment has often been challenging to deal with over the years & #8230; But western sources say there has been a marked drop in the flow of intelligence from key Arab allies in recent months, as the region has been swept by unprecedented turmoil, particularly in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and even onetime adversary Libya."

Jordan has not wanted to respond to recent calls from the U.S. To support some of its intelligence gathering efforts because they seem to have abandoned other leaders. The basic question is how can leaders in Jordan and Saudi Arabia be sure that the U.S. will come to the aid of their allies when they have so far shown that they are not willing to do so to any great extent. So far the Arab Spring has been an "intelligence gathering disaster" for the U.S. And other Western countries because of this problem (Blanch "Arab"). But, it is difficult to fault either Jordan or Saudi Arabia when one looks at the indifference that seems evident, especially in the case of Mubarak who had been a key U.S. ally for 30 years.

One of the biggest issues for the U.S. In this arena is that there are laws that U.S. citizens must follow whether they are on U.S. soil or not. The present administration has shown a willingness to condemn its own citizens engaged in peace-keeping and military operations in favor of foreign nationals. Because of this fear, and the realization that U.S. law prohibits stringent intelligence gathering methods that may be seen as torturous to the individual involved, the U.S. uses foreign intelligence services to do their "dirty work," so to speak. One operative within the Cia said that

"First and foremost is the loss of the so-called "black rendition" system the CIA launched after 9/11. That involved the agency secretly flying captured terrorist suspects to Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and other Arab states for interrogation by their intelligence services, which frequently involved torture" (Blanche "Arab").

For many years the U.S. had used this system because it was thought to be better than transporting a dissident from a foreign region to the United States for interrogation. This is the stated reason, but actually the foreign intelligence services do not have the restrictions placed on them that the U.S. service does. This has worked for both the nations in the Middle East and the West, but the distrust that has been generated between the U.S. And its allies in Jordan and Saudi Arabia has caused them to be reluctant to continue the practice. Jordan especially is trying to make sure that nothing happens that can lead to any enhancement of the small protests that the nation has seen so far.

However, there is another nation in the region that the U.S. is much more concerned about than Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Israel is an island amid a sea of enemies. Even the countries that have not proved hostile in the past 20 or 30 years since the conflicts during the initial stages of Israeli nation-building, cannot be completely trusted. The success of the Israeli state has been of great concern to the West, and especially the U.S., because many of the people that populate the country originally came from the West. The U.S. has provided a great deal of aid to the country, but they have not been able to assist with any type of meaningful peace negotiations. Since 1979 when Sadat, Begin and Carter first came up with a plan that could end much of the struggle between Arab countries and Israel, there have been constant breakdowns in negotiations. This is mainly because of Israel poor relationship with the Palestinian people who occupy parts of the country (Manila Bulletin). The security of Israel goes a long way to maintaining the security of Western nations because the intelligence service in Israel has more of an idea what is happening in the region. This means that the U.S. And other Western states have to work with Israel, and their fears of the Arab Spring uprisings, to make sure that the security that Israel affords them remains intact.

Economics

Security is probably the greatest threat that the U.S. And its Western allies have concerned themselves with, but there is also the problem of financial security. Jordan has seen a recent increase in their GDP that far outstripped what they thought was possible (Malloch-Brown). They are a part of an "Arab region of some 340 million people [that] possesses strength upon which to build future foundations: a dynamic/young population, vast natural resources (besides oil and natural gas), a large regional market (worth $2 trillion), an advantageous geo-strategic location and access to key Asian markets" (Siddiqi & Smith). This growth has not been lost on the U.S. And other Western nations because they also reap the benefits of these countries being strong financially. Jordan is one of the strongest financially because it does not have the oil exports that other countries do have the benefit of. Jordan does not have some of the issues that other countries in the region do because of this. Siddiqi and Smith note that

"The GCC countries (except Bahrain) are not as vulnerable as peer Arab nations because of their ample monetary assets, small indigenous populations and highly generous welfare system. Despite unabated regional instability, consumer spending and business investment in the Gulf continue to increase, compared to the previous two years. The multilateral organizations, however, stress the region's oil exporters face challenges, including the need to further diversify their economies, create jobs for their nationals, develop their financial markets to support higher growth, and improve the management of public resources" (Siddiqi & Smith).

This last sentence is where Jordan actually has an advantage over other countries. Because Jordan has been forced, like Lebanon and others, to develop industry and banking (to name a few) they have been able to see stronger growth than some of the countries that are supposedly oil rich. This does not mean that Saudi Arabia and the other oil producing nations will lose that advantage any time soon, but the fact that some countries have relied solely on oil could presage their downfall if they do not diversify at least parts of their economies.

The good news in this case is that many of the countries in the Middle East have not been economically affected, to any great extent, by the incdents of the Arab Spring, but there is some concern about future instability from Western nations. Siddiqi and Smith go on in their report that "This social unrest is weighing on investor confidence, tourism, and foreign direct investment (FDI)." This type of aid is crucial to Jordan because it has significant links to the U.S. When people in Western countries fear for their safety, they stop going to destinations such as Jordan and spending the money that is so vital to that local economy. Investors in businesses from the East were actually making a great deal of money as some of these countries were less affected by the global financial crisis than others. Unfortunately, the Arab Spring has curbed that enthusiasm, and forced investors to take a second look at what is happening in the Middle East before continuing to invest there.

These economies may seem like a pittance when it comes to the much larger and much greater diversified economies of the West, but that has proven false in the past. A small economy that only produces a single good can be a large problem for larger economies (O'Sullivan). The primary reason for this is that the one item that the country exports can be an extremely valuable commodity. In this case, that commodity is oil. The U.S. And other Western countries get a lot of the oil that the countries need from the Middle East, and if they are in turmoil it can negatively impact the large country to a greater extent than it normally would.