Jordan’s status as a functioning state sandwiched between conflict zones, regional powers and Western interests has been an ever-present fact of the small country’s history. Juggling foreign policy goals, key alliances and public opinion is a game that the Jordanian government has played for 80 years, and with Israel committing genocide next door, Jordan’s unique challenge has been discussed on major Arab and Western news networks. Throughout this trying time, Jordan’s Ministry of Communication has been attempting to ensure, through various means, that the country’s image remains favourable. One particular action has attracted attention over the last two years: Jordan’s provision of humanitarian aid by land and air. Most foreign media has reported positively on Jordan’s key role in providing aid to besieged civilians, but not all coverage has been flowery. For one, networks have pointed out that sending aid in the form of airdrop, a procedure necessitated by Israeli blockades, has resulted in civilian casualties and aid being lost to the waves of the Mediterranean. Due to these issues, aid is now delivered by trucks or Jordanian troops landing on the ground with essential supplies in hand. Nevertheless, this is contingent on Israeli permission, a fact that many Arab and pro-Palestine people detest, but a fact that the Jordanian state lacks control over. Despite these obstacles, Jordan has been recognized for its role in providing humanitarian aid during a desperate time. Jordanian territory serves as an international hub for NGOs, and the country’s infrastructure a launching pad for good Samaritans and their contributions to make their way to Palestine.
When the Middle East Eye, a news site likely backed by Qatar, published allegations that Jordan profited from aid, the relevant bodies were quick to respond. Specifically, the MEE claimed that the Jordanian Armed Forces charged $2,200 for every truck, $200,000 for an untargeted airdrop and $400,000 for a targeted one. They further claimed that even though Jordan profits from delivering aid, Jordan’s own contributions are negligible. The Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization (JHCO) corrected the MEE’s estimate of the cost of delivering aid, stating that delivering the aid actually costs more than stated, and that this covers fuel, insurance, supplies and so on. Furthermore, the JHCO revealed that of 391 airdrops over Gaza, 125 were completely funded and executed by Jordan, while 266 were funded by “brotherly nations” who sought to take part. The organization then reaffirmed its stance and vehemently denied profiting off pain, calling the MEE article an attempt to “tarnish Jordan’s image for malicious and misleading purposes”. In addition to the JHCO’s detailed clarification, aid organizations from countries like Malaysia and Oman that have worked with the JHCO stepped up to defend Jordan against these allegations. In short, allegations were made against Jordan, they were debunked with accuracy and others corroborated what the JHCO’s Media Office had to say. This was a masterclass in public relations, only for the government to enact a policy that dismantled any credibility the JHCO had in one thrust.
A few days after the aid report, the ministry of communication blocked access to 12 news sites, principally the Middle East Eye. Also included were other Qatari-backed sites, such as “Arabi Post”, though even independent, liberal sites that specialize in op-eds, like the Lebanese “Raseef22” were blocked. Clearly, officials saw the Middle East Eye’s indiscretion as an excuse to shut down any network perceived to be critical of Jordan and its policies. This is the camp that views national security and free speech as two parallel lines that do not touch, with the former being paramount. In this challenging time of external war and internal tension, conservative policymakers view control of the national narrative as essential to maintaining Jordan’s stability.. The problem is, we are no longer in the age of newspapers, but the age of the internet, which should change the entire calculus. This means that actually blocking content is close to impossible, but the moral vindication gifted to censored entities/groups remains, making censorship a net negative for the state. Adding on, a global internet heightens the youth’s awareness of democratic values and their importance. Given that we are in the middle of a reform program which seeks to democratize our country, one should heavily consider this. Overall, this article aims to demonstrate that, rather than protect the state, censorship breaks the bond between the people and their government. In the long term, a decrease in trust between the masses and their leaders is more detrimental than a fake news story or critical op-ed.
Ashab Ul-Haqq: The Moral Gravitas Given to Victims of Censorship
One gets the impression that those who advocate for censorship are not familiar with what they’re dealing with. Unlike a newspaper, whose circulation can be completely restricted, nothing can truly be deleted from the internet. A virtual private network (VPN) can be used to bypass blockages, a frequent act in every country with repressive internet regulations, especially by the youth who seek to access banned social media platforms. Articles can also be recirculated by different sites, which would lead regulators into an endless game of whack-a-mole. Moreover, modern news sites effectively use social media to share their stories, not just their main website. For instance, the Middle East Eye has more Instagram followers than website visits. Upon considering that the main demographic that uses social media are those under 35 (the age group that occupies the largest percentage of Jordan’s population), it becomes obvious that censorship does nothing to restrict access to the actual article(s) that the government dislikes. In fact, it serves the purposes of those the government seeks to censor. Users commenting under posts discussing the website bans expressed that censorship proved the state had something to hide.
To clarify, I am not expressing the same opinion; MEE and associated outlets have a streak of biased reporting against the Jordanian state. The tone of their analysis and omitted context makes it obvious that the site’s reporting on Jordan is influenced by its ideological leanings and state patron, rather than a will to educate readers about the country. That being said, the ministry’s decision gave credence to a site whose reporting on Jordan is amateur at best and malicious at worst. Rather than censor everything they dislike and leave the Jordanian people in the dark (while simultaneously contributing to worsening Jordan’s image amongst the Arab public), they should do their job and communicate. Explaining government policies and positions to the Jordanian people develops mutual trust and respect, whereas censorship gives the impression that something is being hidden. Dealing with a serious allegation by airbrushing it insults the nation’s intelligence and arouses their ire. Whilst reflecting on the ineffective response of the Ministry in the face of such challenges, I have observed that the minister and senior staff come from a generation that may not be fully attuned to the evolving dynamics of the internet. Whilst there is wisdom in age, the ministry is operating on logic based on print news. To this end, I believe that a dialogue should be opened with Jordanian youth surrounding internet censorship, in addition to streamlining the hiring and promotion of young people in the ministry.
A Time of Reform, or a Time of Repression?: Censorship’s Blocking of the Road to Democracy
Since the passing of the new electoral law and continuing on to 2032, Jordan is meant to undergo significant reforms that will greatly expand the political arena, increase the powers vested in democratic institutions and guarantee the democratic rights and freedoms of all citizens, irrespective of background or ideological position. These reforms, inspired by seven discussion papers by His Majesty discussing democratizing Jordan, necessitate safeguarding freedom of expression to guarantee robust political participation from all of society’s segments. This is not just my opinion, but that of the very same committee that recommended the reforms:
“The Committee considers that the results it has reached in the realms of modernising the main political legislations require an appropriate environment of public freedoms, openness, and an integrated human rights system; in a manner that allows the maturation of a pluralistic public sphere that allows individuals, groups, political parties and civil institutions freedom of movement, expression and participation within the framework of the law, ensuring a smooth transition into a new political stage.”
Unfortunately, the Cybercrime Law, legislated one year after the reforms, directly harms the reform process. While most of it concerns the protection of privacy and halting illicit activity on the internet, some of the law’s clauses stifle free expression. For instance, posts that include “fake news” and “stir sedition” are illegal and carry fines of thousands of dinars and prison sentences of 1-3 years. These terms are not defined clearly; thus, the state has interpreted them liberally. Many journalists, activists and private citizens have been arrested for expressing their opinions on social media. Most notable is the case of Ahmed Hassan Al Zoubi, a popular journalist whose criticism of the government’s handling of protests in Ma’an led to imprisonment for “inciting conflicts between components of the nation”. If every criticism of the government insults a component of the nation, there simply won’t be any criticism. Perhaps this is the intended effect of these clauses, but they are short sighted and unjust. Just because negative opinions of certain policies are no longer posted, it does not mean they do not exist. On the contrary, the lack of space to express frustration will have problematic effects. Firstly, His Majesty, the state and the committee don’t just want to open up the political sphere because it sounds like the right thing to do. This move increases the level of trust between the people and their government, and offers a wider range of solutions to the country’s problems, hence why the world’s most advanced nations have free speech and political pluralism. Through pervasive censorship, most people with unorthodox opinions and solutions to Jordan’s problems won’t participate in the political process the state encourages them to participate in. Adding on, some may seek to join illegal organizations to express their frustration and harm the security of the state. Therefore, even though censorship’s proponents argue that it defends national security, it has the potential to do unimaginable harm. The glaring contradiction between the call for political pluralism and arbitrary arrests for expressing one’s thoughts is one that has to be addressed.
Concluding Remarks
When Jordanians speak of censorship, it is often with a sense of resignation. On the bustling street and the busy media offices, there is frustration that is overwhelmed by the sense of censorship being part and parcel of Arab political life. Some time ago, I expressed dismay about the arrest of an individual under the Cybercrime law to some colleagues in Amman: “We’re not in Canada”, they shrugged. Just because a practice is prevalent, does not mean we can not change it, for this is how countries evolve. The history and self-perception of the Jordanian state gives enough incentive to do away with archaic censorship. To begin, Jordan’s stability has historically lied in the existence of various social contracts. This country’s people have always valued their freedom and autonomy; with certain exceptions, intellectuals and tribal leaders have vocalized complaints, and rather than repressing them, the state has sought negotiation and accommodation. Expressing one’s opinion is not a Western phenomenon, but an integral part of Jordan’s political culture, dating back to town councils in the Ottoman era and the majalis of the Bedouin. Limiting self-expression violates a contract between the government and people that has given Jordan almost continuous security since 1946, along with violating the Jordanian spirit. While well-meaning, local critics suffer from censorship laws, large, foreign sites with poisonous agendas enjoys the false sense of justice granted by censorship, when they are anything but.
Moreover, much of Jordan’s self-exported image to the world is that of a tolerant place. Different people and views coexist, and our society is open to debate and change, unlike much of the region. This is why countless international companies, NGOs and news organizations set up shop in cosmopolitan Amman. When we shut down any opinion we dislike, and jail everyone we disagree with, we resemble draconian governments elsewhere in the Middle East. “At least we’re not like ___ regime, God protect this country!”, I’ve been told when I criticize aspects of how Jordan is run. While we should be grateful for the many opportunities in Jordan that may not exist nearby, arbitrary censorship puts us in the same camp that some of us like to criticize. Silencing critics is symbolic of totalitarianism, not tolerance. If the Jordanian state wishes to preserve its domestic and international reputation, it must end its pervasive censorship, in order to fulfill the pledge to reform Jordan’s political system and change our country for the better.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of 9awtak.com, its staff, or other contributors.
Valuable insights.