What Syria?

       The new chairman of the Jordanian parliament who formerly served as Minister of Interior and Deputy Prime Minister answered the following when asked about possible reconciliation steps between Damascus and Jordan and intelligence cooperation: "as far as I know, Jordan does not interfere in Syrian territories in any form, and Jordan’s role is to protect its security and citizen well-being, with a clear decision from the very beginning of a policy of non-interference".

      Assuming that a high-level figure such as the former Minister of Interior/Deputy Prime Minster is indeed kept in the dark about a major security crisis occurring 300 km away from Amman, the neutrality and passiveness in his response still struck a chord. What does it mean to follow a policy of non-interference? Is this is civil disaster occurring in a Latin American country with which Jordan has no historic, cultural, economic and  political ties? Is the destiny of the Syrian nation, a nation with whom we-Jordanians-share a history, a religion, a culture and a language, a matter out of our realm of interest? Or are we promoting extreme acts of respect towards national sovereignty?

      When thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin called for sovereignty of states, their governments and their citizens against the intervention and attacks of neighboring regions, their call was meant to establish peace. The intention and drive was to ensure that nations live peacefully side by side, respecting each others’ boundaries and rules. Experts as we are in the Arab world in transforming ideals and slogans into tools of control, molding them to suite the tastes and interests of political elites, we have managed again to interpret sovereignty as an abstract concept, applied strictly as has been theorized. We voided it from any humanistic perspective and moral obligation.

     The neutrality towards the Syrian crisis is an embarrassment and a disgrace to political integrity. Pointing rifles and canons towards the Syrian regime or the revolutionists or both is not what is being requested; what is is a position of compassion, indignation and rejection of what is happening. An active, responsible and inclusive position is what should be expected. A position of apathy and political shrewdness to ensure the protection and security of one group of people while the other group suffers is an embarrassing one.

     To conclude, Turkish rhetoric about what is happening in Syria is void rhetoric, but it is a lesser evil. So pretty please dear Excellencies, when asked about what the government is doing about a humanitarian catastrophe just across the border, do not fake ignorance and do lie for compassion’s sake.

American Flag

An article posted in the Washington Post eloquently titled “The day the American flag was shown unmolested in Iran” is in no way void of cynicism. The poetic depiction at the end of the article of an American flag displayed in the ever so radical and fundamentalist Iran, on the occasion of the Wrestling World Cup held in Tehran, must have raised eyebrows amongst non western readers, mine at least.

Why is the American flag not the most popular flag in the Middle East? A quick review of historic events may clear the enigma: instigation of a 10 year war between two neighbors; a war on Iraq that left the country in shatters; an embargo on Syrian economy and society; demonization of Islamic groups and thought; support and then persecution of militant groups in Afghanistan; an intended stalemate of any peace deal in the holy lands; reckless killing of Yemeni citizens by foreign military planes; and support to oppressive, authoritarian and proxy regimes, all are the works of US administrations throughout the past 40 years. Why the American flag is not hung on the balcony of each Iranian house should therefore not come as a surprise.

Iran’s historic ties with its neighbours have passed through good and bad times, just like every other nation on the face of the planet. Europe was not an oasis of happy friendly relations between neighboring countries until relatively recently, and neither was that the case in countries with border disputes. The difference between these scenarios and that of Iran is the international campaign against Iran, depicting Persia as the bogyman, directly threatening the interests and security of fellow Arab and Jewish neighbours (use of Jewish is intentional as the Israeli state identifies itself based on religious affiliation). Ganging up against the country, as billion dollar arms deals in gulf countries are being sealed for protection against potential invasions, as Israeli generals are rallying for strikes, as Shiite Islam is becoming portrayed as a perilous invading ideology, and as the history of the country and its culture are being reduced to a veil, a beard and a nuclear weapon, all contribute to maintaining animosity and suspicion between Iran and its neighbours. Why the American flag is not welcome in the country is perhaps related to the former's administration non-waning efforts to westernize the country and its non discreet frustration towards an Iran that refuses to succumb and offer its sovereignty on a silver plate.

Reminiscence of the shah days in Iran, where the country enjoyed pro-western ties and a culture accepted by the west and reflective of its norms should not come at the expense of the modern realities, beliefs and orientations of the Iranian public. Whether the regime and its electors choose what the west views as an outdated, retarded ideologically restrictive system or a more liberal and modern system is a matter exclusive to the Iranian people only. Designing and marketing scenarios where Iran is pointing guns and bombs towards the world is not the way to go about changing the regime and its intellectual basis.

Engagement with this Persian power is a necessity for the tranquility and peace of the region as a whole.  The politics of polarization, accusation and intimidation are not bearing any results, nor are constant reminiscences of a happier past changing the stance of either sides. To conclude, I believe that instead of posting sentimental articles that long for peaceful relations between the near east and west, more articles and opinions should be voiced, demanding serious steps and measures to restore whatever dignity is left amongst the Arab public and concrete plans to assist the region to develop politically, culturally, socially and economically at its own pace and within its own beliefs and ideals.