Pay close attention to Annapolis

It’s complicated. We know that. Textbooks will be written about the players and politics that lead up to the Annapolis Peace Conference in November of this year. With almost 4 million people in Jordan of Palestinian origin, what matters is how it will affect them.

On the surface, one could say that it’s not likely to change much. However, closer scrutiny shows that the impact could be profound. Failure means instability ...instability brings fear … and fear results in a multitude of consequences.

When opposition forces in Jordan criticize the government for manipulating the Parliamentary election that took place on November 20th, they are implying that if there were truly free and fair elections, Jordan’s Islamists could follow the lead of Hamas in Palestine and rise to power. This is debatable, but the possibility is enough to cause “global flinching”. Jordan is a significant ally to the US and protecting safety and security may be seen by some as more important than pursuing democratic reforms.

When Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert meet with US President George W. Bush in Annapolis on the 27th of November, the world will be holding it’s breath. Not because anyone expects a signed deal on a two-state solution, but because people will be waiting to see if peace is even possible. Clearly, there are some who don’t want peace ...it would remove their raison d’etre.

There are signs that Hamas is divided, and not only because some of its leaders are in jails or in other countries, but because there are those who are tired and horrified by the reality of violence, while some still see a gun as the only vehicle for change in a society torn apart and witness to Palestinians fighting Palestinians ….brother against brother.

Many are calling this, “the last chance conference.” Failure of the Annapolis Conference would affect the entire region. At stake for Jordan is the refugee issue (roughly half of the population who add to the political, economic and social strain), internal security arrangements, a commitment to guard religious and holy sites in East Jerusalem, the water issue, and economic cooperation that might enable the rehabilitation of the refugee “camps”. All of which is in addition to the issue of common security if the failure of the Conference results in growing extremism and fundamentalist movements in Jordan and the region.

It is not just a question of right-of-return or cash compensation. It is a question of dignity, of a need to feel like they belong. They want to truly enjoy a notion of citizenship that removes the stigma of being visitors to Jordan who have worn out their welcome.

The lack of hope is further enforced by a belief that both leaders, Mr. Abbas and Mr. Olmert, are entering negotiations from very weak positions. Mr. Abbas and his Fatah Party are in an open conflict with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. Mr. Olmert is very unpopular in Israel and almost lost his position following the report on the conflict with Lebanon in the summer of 2006.

By contrast, His Majesty King Abdullah II is a beacon of hope and a voice of moderation. With the aim of providing an Arab and Islamic “safety net”, he has proactively engaged all the political players in the region and many around the world. He has also spoken of the risks involved and the need to seize the opportunity

The idea of resolving the issue of citizenship is a worthwhile goal, but expectations of it resulting from the Annapolis Conference are slim. There is a lack of faith in political leadership. The bottom line is, if the Annapolis Conference is doomed to mediocrity, there will be a resulting drag on democracy efforts in the region.