View previous stories
	The fallout from Amman by OpenDemocracy Middle East   16 - 11 - 2005   "The fallout from Amman", by James Howarth. (openDemocracy)   The 9 November bombs in Amman that slaughtered fifty-seven people in three hotels were unprecedented for two reasons: they were the first ever suicide attacks in Jordan, and the first such attacks anywhere perpetrated by a married couple. This revelation, apparently confirmed by Sajida al-Rishawi"s confession on Jordanian television, has added a macabre new twist in the bloodstrewn trail of events since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It comes as no surprise to hear that three of her brothers, one of whom was allegedly a confidant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had been killed in the fighting there.   The attacks have posed a brutal challenge to the country"s status as a peaceful haven wedged between conflict zones. Now certified as the work of the nascent but deadly al-Qaida in Iraq organisation, they raise critical questions over the relationship between moderate Jordan and chaotic Iraq. All four bombers were from the neighbouring Anbar province in western Iraq where US troops have been sucked into a grisly struggle against insurgents. Tensions are simmering here in Amman, where the large community of Iraqi exiles, the "new Palestinians", remains nervous of a backlash, despite assurances that they are welcome. Their anxiety is mixed with genuine sorrow and on all sides there is a resolve that nothing should change in the wake of the blasts.   It is clearly worrying that the terror dragon just goes on growing new heads. But the strong public reaction in Jordan denouncing the attacks, and Jordanian-born al-Zarqawi in particular, has given observers some cause for cautious optimism amidst the carnage. For days, the city has been filled with demonstrators and processions of horn-blaring cars expressing both disgust at the terrorists and support for the Hashemite administration. Jordanian society stands united in rejecting the spread of terror over its borders. This is a far cry from the Pew survey in July 2005 which found that 57% of Jordanians deemed suicide bombings and other violent actions justifiable in the defence of Islam.   Prince Hassan, the uncle of King Abdullah II and a respected international voice, told CNN outside the Radisson SAS Hotel where a wedding party was blown to pieces that Jordan must continue along its path of progressive social reform. The strategy, given that "hard security" can never be entirely watertight, would be based on a long-term "soft security" approach involving economic inclusion and good governance.   The crisis of al-Qaida   At one level the Amman attacks, like the London bombs and the French riots, represent a shocking expression of dissent. But the similarity ends there. From a regional perspective and in light of the Iraq war, they come at the fragmented end of over four decades of an Islamist ideology that awoke in the 1960s when the Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb - traumatised by a two-year working trip to mid-west America as well as imprisonment and torture under Gamal Abdel Nasser - became the leading theorist for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood had its origins in Sufism, but against the backdrop of modern social and political malaise, adapted to form a political movement inspired by both leftist and rightist European ideas, based a supposedly catch-all ideology "Islam is the solution" that aimed for a full-scale takeover of the state.   The Islamist movement, having failed to achieve its principal objective, resorted to ever-more desperate measures, but only succeeded in alienating the peaceful, law-abiding Egyptian populace. One of its main protagonists, Ayman al-Zawahiri, went on to become the main ideologue for al-Qaida during its Sudan and Afghanistan days. Now in its Iraqi incarnation, and aiming to spread terror across the region from its new recruitment and training ground there, it seems this time to have shot itself in the foot. Whatever armchair support existed in Jordan has undeniably decreased.   Al-Qaida, lacking any positive social or political programme, contains the seeds of its own destruction. In its current guise under al-Zarqawi, the movement cannot set its sights on much more than anarchist criminality. They may be able to make life almost impossible for the US army in Iraq, but they lack the political capacity to win the war outright.   The logic behind the Amman attacks was no doubt to open up an unsettling rift between the monarchy and a population who were overwhelmingly against the Iraq war. If anything, it has achieved the opposite, and the alienation of whatever support may have existed in Jordan may well prove to be another step in the inevitable decay of radical Islamism. A relative newcomer to al-Qaida, al-Zarqawi clearly lacks not only Qutb"s intellectual erudition and political vision but also bin Laden’s rhetorical and media skills. His naivety and rashness are symptomatic of the decline. What was once considered the definitive global terror network may be splintering into a haze of localised and practically unconnected outbursts.   As with historical precedents, however, Islamist movements generally are bifurcating between those who wish to continue a futile violent struggle and those who may prove amenable to negotiation and adaptation. The fact that behind the scenes talks are being conducted with the likes of Hamas and Hizbollah reveals a western strategy of trying to co-opt political Islam into a compromise with democratic processes and strengthen their more moderate wings, encouraging these hardline organisations to chart a similar route to the IRA and officially renounce violence.   This may lead to a much sought-after reconciliation between the demand for democracy in the region and the resurgence of Islamic sentiment, regardless of the potential pitfall of legitimising political violence. That Jordan"s own Islamists have at certain times been allowed reasonable political space to operate may be one reason why the country has escaped the violence until now.   Jordan"s path   It may have seemed only a matter of time before violence of this nature hit a Jordan stuck between a lawless Iraq, an overheated Israel-Palestine, a hardline Saudi Arabia and a hesitant Syria. But the hope in Amman is that the heartening show of solidarity here from all sections of society might prove to be a turning-point. Could it spur a long-awaited popular regional backlash against the ideas of bin Laden and al-Zarqawi?   As his regular statements ground to a halt nearly a year ago, bin Laden may well be dead. The handing over of his mantle to a protégé devoid of any real strategy can be seen as a sign both of strength and weakness. The movement will continue for now, but could be fatally undermining itself in the process. Terror in the name of Islam may actually now start to go the way of all the many other movements that have tried to change the world through violence, such as the 19th century anarchists and far-left groups like the Red Brigades in Italy. Iraq and localised conflicts notwithstanding, global jihadism is petrifying intellectually and, if it continues its increasingly desperate and miscalculated strikes, will lose the battle for hearts and minds.   One way for Arab governments and intellectuals to accelerate this process would be to fight back the extremists on two levels: the practical and the theological. Jordan itself, most recently at the Amman conference in July 2005, when 170 Muslim scholars from forty countries came to discuss "the reality of Islam and its role in contemporary society", has pioneered the argument that radical Islamism involves a perverted understanding of the faith. As for external powers, there is undoubtedly a need to better understand and define the basic parameters of the opponent before any meaningful strategy can be formulated. Senior international security analysts readily admit there is a long way to go towards developing a conceptual apparatus to deal with the challenge.   Moreover, the internal weakness of jihadist movements does not necessarily make them any less dangerous. This is especially so as long as the critical needs of the region remain to be fulfilled:   * for broader, more transparent political participation   * greater economic inclusion and social mobility   * peaceful, effective evolution beyond the simple choice of autocracy vs theocracy   As long as these issues are unresolved, the middle east will contain the potential for violent unrest.
	Protecting Liberty by Russ Feingold & John Sununu Boston Globe USA   Novemeber, 2005   In July, something unusual occurred in Washington: The U.S. Senate cast a unanimous vote on a controversial issue. Every member of the Senate agreed to make meaningful changes to the Patriot Act as we re-authorized parts of it scheduled to expire at the end of the year. These revisions will ensure that our government can wage an effective fight against terrorists that respects our basic freedoms. But the battle for these reforms is not over. In the coming weeks, a House-Senate conference committee will meet to work out the differences between competing versions of the bill. Hard-won improvements to the Patriot Act could be in jeopardy.   We will make every effort - and, if we have to, use procedural options at our disposal - to oppose a final re-authorization bill that either strips out the meaningful changes made by the Senate bill or adds measures that ignore the public demands for more protection of our rights and freedoms. Our goal is not to derail re-authorization; it is to ensure that necessary changes to the Patriot Act are made as part of the re-authorization bill. We can - and should - provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to fight terrorism while protecting civil liberties at home.   The end-of-the-year deadline for re-authorization gives us a rare chance to fix parts of the Patriot Act - creating a check on searches for library, bookstore, and other sensitive records, putting new safeguards on secret "sneak and peek" searches of Americans" homes, and giving citizens real power to challenge secret court orders. These and other issues are at stake in the House-Senate conference committee"s deliberations.   If the Senate bill prevails in conference, Congress will finally catch up with an American public that has been questioning the Patriot Act for years - librarians who are standing up to a Justice Department that wants the power to dig into Americans" library records; town and city councils - even whole states - that have passed resolutions opposing parts of the Patriot Act; and business interests like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Association of Realtors that support changes to the law.   The Senate bill would make changes to some of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act. The Senate bill would: Require the government to convince a judge that a person is connected to terrorism or espionage before secretly obtaining library, medical, and other sensitive business records about that person, and allow recipients of court orders for such records to challenge them in court.   Require the government in most circumstances to inform targets of "sneak and peek" searches within seven days instead of being able to delay that notification for an indefinite period as permitted by the Patriot Act, or for up to six months as permitted by the House bill.   Eliminate "John Doe roving wiretaps," the secret intelligence orders that can now be issued without identifying either the person or phone to be tapped.   Provide only a four-year extension for three of the most sensitive provisions of the Patriot Act.   The House bill fails to include these important measures, leaving too many of our freedoms at risk. While some improvements were incorporated in the House bill, it is still a far cry from what Congress owes the American people.   There is a strong sense among many Americans that in the Patriot Act the government overreached when it sought power that is a potential threat to law-abiding citizens. Congress should respond to these legitimate concerns by sending the unanimously adopted Senate version of the Patriot Act reauthorization bill to the president. We must reform the Patriot Act, not rubber-stamp the original law. With these reforms, we can fight terrorism without sacrificing our freedoms.   (Russ Feingold, a Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin and John Sununu, a Republican U.S. senator from New Hampshire, are original cosponsors of the legislation to modify the Patriot Act. This article first appeared in The Boston Globe.)
	View more stories