July 23, 2014
Two
thousand Jordanian citizens are estimated to be fighting alongside radical
groups in Syria. In attempts to address the threat of spillover from the Syrian
war—in particular the unsanctioned movement of fighters between Jordan and
Syria—the government submitted a draft law amending the 2006 Terrorism Prevention Law.
Yet the proposal continues a dangerous trend of using the rising jihadi threat
in the region to legitimize domestic clampdowns on free expression.
The new
amendments, passed by both houses of parliament in late April and awaiting the
king’s approval, risk further inhibiting dissent by using the threat from Syria
as a pretext for a vague definition of terrorism at home. While this approach
may prove successful for short-term stability, it undermines prospects for a
constructive societal dialogue that could find a sustainable solution to
Jordan’s terror threat.
After the
2011 Arab uprisings, the Jordanian government initially relaxed certain
restrictions on public space. Protests and public criticism of the country’s
leaders, nearly unheard of in previous years, became common. Major violations,
such as the arrest of journalists, decreased. But instability in neighboring states has
caused the government to tread back—by issuing new and more extreme
anti-terrorism laws, banning of books or media
outlets that
do not comply with restrictive laws, and pressuring opposition groups.
Jordan has
so far avoided significant Syria-related violence, but cross-border troubles
are an increasing worry. Jordanian officials have foiled attempts to smuggle
ammunition and armored vehicles from Syria, and the government’s response uses
the increase in cross-border movement for political ends. “Terrorism” has in
turn been given a malleable definition so that security services and courts
have more leeway in prosecuting citizens for dissent. This move is
part-and-parcel of the government’s hope to consolidate more power, reflecting
the monarchy’s growing comfort with an untenable status quo.
Although
much of the language in the 2014 draft law already exists within the Jordanian penal code—especially clauses 147 to 149, which deal
with terrorism—the new amendments are far more punitive. Any measure that
“disturbs the kingdom’s relations with a foreign country” is an act of terror
under the proposed legislation. While clause 118 of the penal code already
criminalizes such behavior, the new draft law differs by increasing penalties
from a minimum of five years of detention to five years of hard labor. This
will reinforce the government’s mandate to prosecute free expression and force
activists and the media to practice greater self-censorship. Three Jordanian
activists were already jailed in September 2013 for putting up
posters of the four-fingered rabia, the mass anti-coup symbol in Egypt, and another
was arrested in
April 2014. While some were freed,
critics worry more is sure to follow. A 2013 poll found over 90 percent of Jordanian journalists
practice self-censorship, an increase after a large drop during the first two
years since the 2011 Arab uprisings.
Under the
new amendments, if “intentionally abstaining” from an act aids criminal
activity, leads to “strife” (fitna),
harms “the public well-being,” or “disturbs public order,” it is terrorism. Yet
like the current penal code, the new amendments do not define fitna, public
well-being, and other terms, leaving their definition and the determination of
intent up to the security courts. This threatens to turn them into a convenient
catch-all for any actions that may rub authorities the wrong way. And
crucially, this vague language threatens to allow much harsher prosecution of
minor offenses than before.
In the
context of Jordan’s vibrant social media activism, the draft law explicitly
targets internet activities, establishing a new legal framework for suppressing
them. This is a reflection of the nature of the Syrian conflict, which may be
the first war in which social media has played a key role in events, from
recruitment for various armed groups to battlefield campaigns. In recent
months, Jordanians have been arrested for online activity, such as a student with Islamist ties and a young man who insulted the king and other
foreign leaders. Their actions could be classified as terrorism under the draft
amendments, particularly the clause about “disturbing relations with a foreign
state.”
Jordan’s
security services have already cracked down on opposition movements, including
the Jordanian Youth Movement, known as Hirak, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite authorities’ promises in September 2013 that the
jurisdiction of the State Security Court (SSC) would be limited to the “five
grand crimes” over which it has constitutional authority, that month saw the
arrest of eleven activists to be tried before the SSC. In March
2014, a Hirak activist was reportedly imprisoned on various charges, including
“stirring up unrest” and “unauthorized assembly,” but with no reference to
specific incidents. Eleven youth activists of the Muslim Brotherhood were also
arrested in October 2013 on charges including “inciting to undermine the ruling
regime.” And the Islamic Action Front, the political wing of the Muslim
Brotherhood, has repeatedly denounced what it calls harassment of and pressure against
Islamists, citing long delays imposed on them at borders and airports. If the
new amendments to the anti-terrorism law are ratified, authorities will have
the legal tools to escalate the scope and severity of this campaign.
Solutions
to Jordan’s cross-border issues and resulting extremist activity ought to involve socially inclusive
measures that encourage dialogue in order to address the root causes of
radicalization. Security solutions that achieve short-term stability and ensure
the state’s monopoly over political discourse can only lead to instability in
the long term. Jordanian decision makers must accordingly rethink the draft amendments
to the anti-terror law and how it may exacerbate the very problem they are
hoping to address.
This article is reprinted with permission from Sada. It can be accessed online at:
http://carnegieendowment.org/sada/2014/07/22/legitimizing-crackdowns-on-dissent-in-jordan/hgqa
David Bishop is a Junior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Middle East Program.