H.E. Dr. Marwan Muasher
Minister of Foreign Affairs

"Challenges Facing the Arab World"

Woodrow Wilson International Center
March 15, 2004

LEE H. HAMILTON: Good afternoon. Let me welcome each one of you to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Let me say how very pleased we are to have this Director’s Forum with Dr. Marwan Muasher who, as you know, is the Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs. I want also to acknowledge the Jordanian Ambassador to the United States, Karim Kawar, who is here. Delighted to have him. And I think the U.S. ambassador to Jordan may be coming very shortly.

As is often the case in this volatile region of the world, we are at a crucial moment in the history of the Middle East. In Iraq many uncertainties lie ahead as a tenuous political transformation plays out amidst an often violent background. In Israel and the Palestinian territories the peace process has stalled, barriers are being erected and the Intifada grinds on. And in the wider region, countries are considering President Bush’s open-ended calls for democratic reform and the ongoing war on terrorism. In the months and years to come Jordan, as it has in the past, will be a key player in facing these and other questions. 

Today we’re pleased to hear from one of Jordan’s most distinguished and experienced government officials, Marwan Muasher. Before becoming minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2002, he served as ambassador to the United States for five years. The U.S. Jordanian Free Trade Agreement, a landmark agreement for the region and indeed for this country, was signed and ratified during his time.

Prior to his service as ambassador, Dr. Muasher held several critical posts in the Jordanian government. From 1991 to ’94 he served as official spokesman for the Jordanian delegation to the Middle East peace talks. In ’95 he served as Jordan’s first ambassador to Tel Aviv. He later went on to serve as Jordan’s minister of Information. 

Now, there are, of course, many reasons for his success, but the principal one is that he holds three degrees from an Indiana university. (Laughter.) He is a graduate, received his Ph.D., indeed, from Purdue University in Indiana in computer engineering. He can explain how he got from computer engineering to foreign affairs, I’m not going to try to tackle that. Purdue also gave him an honorary doctorate in 1999.

His talk today is entitled, “Challenges Facing the Arab World Today: Reform, Iraq and the Peace Process.” Mr. Foreign Minister, you’re welcome to the center. We look forward to your remarks. And at the conclusion he’s agreed to take a few questions.

(Applause.)

DR. MARWAN MUASHER: Thank you very much, Lee. Thank you and let me say what a pleasure it is to be back in Washington and to, for a change, be among a room of friends. 

I chose three issues that I would like to talk about today, and I will begin with an issue other than the peace process, also for a change, which is the issue of the ongoing efforts of reform in the Arab world. This is an issue that is assuming center stage now and it’s an issue that I think the region will have to deal with for some time to come.

As you all know, there are efforts also by the international community, including in the United States, to define this reform in the region through what has come to be known as the “Greater Middle East Initiative.” The first message that I would like to bring from the region is that while I think we do not differ over the content of this reform from what is being talked about here, or for that matter in European countries, but it is very important for the region to have ownership of this program. We cannot be talking about a program that would be imposed or perceived to be imposed in any way by the outside. If we do that, we hurt the genuine efforts of reformers in the region who are trying, and have been trying for some time, to transform this region because they would be fought by the status quo forces in our societies who do not want change and who can easily paint these reformers as U.S. agents. 

Therefore, my number one observation that I brought with me to Washington today is: Please let us have ownership of this program. Let us have ownership of this process. And what we want from the international community is to help us in our own efforts at reform, rather than to suggest a one-for-all blueprint for democracy and ask the region to implement it without taking into account the specific conditions of each country.

Now, having said that, of course, this is not going to be credible on our part if we do not follow through with our own vision of what this reform process should entail. We cannot ask the world not to interfere without us trying to define this because, as history has taught us, if we do not do this, it will be defined for us. And therefore there are genuine efforts today, both in Jordan and in the region, to commit to a set of principles that we all should agree on, having to do with women’s rights, having to do with freedom of expression, good governance, judicial reform, educational reform, and all the other areas that have been talked about. 

There is a genuine effort by the region to come to terms with this, and hopefully, in Tunis at the end of this month, for the Arab League to adopt a set of principles that would define where the region is going. What we are also hoping for is if this set is credible and serious -- and we think it is -- then we hope to solicit help from the international community, but as a response to movement from the region rather than the opposite.

The second message that we would like to be heard is that while the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be used as an excuse for not moving forward on reform -- and one cannot credibly claim, for example, that women’s rights and the Arab-Israeli conflict are related, that we cannot move on women’s rights unless the Arab-Israeli conflict is resolved -- but while this is certainly true, I think it is equally true that movement on reform in isolation of movement on the Arab-Israeli conflict sometimes will lead to the wrong results. And as a result, we need to move on the two together. No reform movement will have any public buy-in if it does not also address the central core issue that all Arabs have on their mind, which is the Arab-Israeli conflict, and any attempt to deal with the region, as if the conflict does not exist, is not going to be a successful one.

And the third observation I want to make on this issue is that this should not be perceived as a movement against a religion, against Islam. If it is against terrorism then we are all with it and, the region has taken and needs to take very strong measures against any terrorist organization, regardless of its religion. But to paint this as or to even be perceived as a movement against religion by talking about a greater Middle East that is not really related in many ways, other than the fact that they share sometimes the same religion, is going to dilute the issue and is going to be counterproductive when it comes to public buy-in of this program.

In Jordan we have moved way beyond this, way beyond the statement of principles, to develop a detailed plan of action of exactly where we are heading along all of the areas that I outlined about. When we talk about women’s rights we have a plan of action that includes a list of all the laws in the country that need to be amended so that discrimination against women is no longer there. When we talk about freedom of expression we talk about, of course, the specific list of laws that have to be amended, abolished or enacted in order to ensure a truly independent media. 

I’m happy to report, of course, that the Ministry of Information, which I once headed, is no longer there. It has been abolished and state control now over state media has also gone, and private licenses for TV and radio stations have already been awarded. As I said, the effort are now we are in discussion over a statement of principles that hopefully will come out of Tunis. And after that we hope that we will engage in a dialogue with the international community in the same way that we have with the European Union in order for this process to be assisted by the international community.

Moving to the peace process, we are now faced with, of course, the latest Israeli proposal of withdrawing from Gaza. This could present an opportunity for movement if it is done the right way. And, frankly, it could also be a disaster if it is not done the right way. It is very important when we talk about withdrawal from Gaza that we don’t withdraw to a state of lawlessness, but that order and security is maintained after the withdrawal is done. And therefore any process that withdraws from Gaza without coordination with the Palestinian Authority, without coordination with the United States and other interested parties, such as Jordan and Egypt, is going to lead to more chaos, more instability, and therefore cannot be done without this coordination. 

There are also many other questions that have so far not been answered. Will the withdrawal be complete, full or not? Will it be accompanied by a similar or at least a withdrawal from settlements in the West Bank to give the distinct impression that this is not going to be Gaza first and last, but that it would be part of a larger process that would end with the end of the occupation? Is this move a replacement of the Roadmap or is it in the context of the Roadmap and part of it? If it is a replacement of the Roadmap, if the idea is to withdraw from Gaza, but keep the West Bank, then of course we are in serious and deep trouble.

That is why we believe that the only alternative we have is to work with the Authority. As much as the Authority is criticized as weak or ineffective or corrupt or what have you, there is no alternative but to work with the Authority to help it rebuild its security capability. Yes, to demand that it abides by all the security requirements under the Roadmap, but to help rebuild this security capability so that we indeed arrive at a state where Israeli forces would withdraw and where the Palestinian Authority can take over in an organized and effective manner.

I cannot tell you that the answers are all there, but I can say that we in Jordan certainly, and I can safely say that the Egyptians are also interested, very interested, in helping the United States and the international community achieve that in an orderly way. And I do believe that this is also an opportunity for the Quartet to regain some of the momentum and clout that it lost, because there is definitely a need for the international community to be involved in this process.

There are two other issues here that we need to keep reminding ourselves for. This process is not going to move if the security situation is not addressed, and therefore it is very important, we believe, not just for the Palestinians, but for all Arab states, to take a stand against all operations targeting civilians, and to take a stand in supporting the current Egyptian efforts to arrive at a comprehensive and a permanent ceasefire, followed by all the security arrangements that are needed to restart the Roadmap.

Having said that, it is also equally important to demand of Israel to commit to the third phase of the Roadmap. The Roadmap has three phases, not by coincidence. It has three phases where the security aspects of the issue are all or mostly dealt with in the first phase. But the Palestinian needs of an end to the occupation and a viable two-state solution are dealt with in the third phase of the Roadmap. No party can commit to one or two phases of the Roadmap and credibly assume that it is satisfying the legitimate needs of the other part. If Arabs, if Palestinians are to commit to the security aspects of the problem in phase one, it is equally important that the Israelis also commit, without reservations, to the third phase of the Roadmap, which ends with the end of the occupation and the establishment of a two-state solution.

This is the one element that drives Jordanian foreign policy when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Any effort that aims at a two-state solution, and a viable two-state solution, is an effort that Jordan will support. And any effort that moves against a two-state solution is an effort that Jordan would oppose. This very much defines our position that we took against the Wall. We have been criticized by many quarters in this country of leading this effort in the Arab world against the course of the Wall and the arrangements that accompany that wall. 

We did not do it to appear as, you know, for propaganda purposes in the Arab world. If we wanted to do this we would not take a public stand against also suicide bombings. We did it because the course of the Wall, cutting deep inside Israeli territory and the arrangements that accompany that course making life difficult for the Palestinians to keep living in the West Bank, that has direct negative repercussions on Jordanian national interests and not just on the Palestinians. And therefore it is very important to make the point that while the Wall is Israel’s business if it wants to build it on the ’67 line to protect its citizens, it is not Israel’s business if it wants to build it inside Palestinian territory. It becomes very much a political issue and not just a security one.

And the third issue that I would like to talk about is Iraq, of course. We believe that on one hand Arab states need to take a proactive position to help Iraqis during the present crisis. But regardless of the position any of us took -- opposing or siding with the war on Iraq -- the fact is today that without a proactive Arab role helping Iraqis, the occupation is going to last longer. And therefore if the objective is to shorten the time of the occupation, then we all need to take a proactive role in helping Iraqis during this time. And I think both the neighboring states’ last meeting in Kuwait went extremely positively in sending that signal to the Iraqis, as well as the Arab foreign ministers in Cairo which also sent a positive signal, signaling that Arabs truly do want to play a constructive role whether it is in the political process, whether it is in the reconstruction phase or whether it is in the economic fields as well.

We also believe in Jordan that the political process in Iraq has to be coupled with rebuilding the Iraqi security capability, if we are talking about preserving the unity of the country. We cannot talk about the unity of Iraq being preserved indefinitely by foreign forces. And if Iraqis are to assume control of their security situation over the whole country, then it is imperative that all of us help in rebuilding the security capability. This is why Jordan took the decision of training Iraqi police force and members of the military, as well. We are now training close to 35,000 members of the police force over a period of two years, in addition to 4,000 or 5,000 members from the military. But that is not enough, and we do not want to reach a stage where a political process is developed but is not coupled with a security capability.

The other issue that we are all concerned about is the unity of Iraq. No one has the right to interfere in the kind of political system that Iraqis want to choose for themselves. This is very much an Iraqi internal affair. The unity of Iraq is not an Iraqi internal affair, only. It is a regional affair because the dismemberment of the country is going to have deep, deep repercussions over the whole region and would throw the whole region into an Arab instability, and therefore we do have an opinion on the need to preserve the unity of Iraq. And we are all for a process that is driven by the Iraqis that would preserve that unity, that would not take any action that might lead to threatening this unity. And that can be only achieved if Iraqis can agree, not only on the rule of the majority, but on the rights of the minority. Rule of the majority without rights of the minority might lead to a situation of civil war in the country. And therefore, this golden rule must be preserved at all times if we are to talk about an Iraq that continues to be united and continues to be stable in this region.

These are some of the issues that we are dealing with at the moment. It’s not an easy time in the region. But given all the difficulties that we are facing, we still believe that there are opportunities, if we do things right, whether on the peace process and certainly on the reform level. 

Thank you very much.

(Applause.)

LEE HAMILTON: I will open it up for a few questions. 


Mr. Minister, you may stand at the podium or sit as you prefer. We’ll begin here, all right, and then over here and here.

ABDESSALAM IMAD: Abedssalam Imad, a doctoral student at George Mason University, and also a Jordanian citizen. 

Dr. Muasher, some of the statements that you just said contradict with what’s going on in Jordan, and I’m just going to show you what one of the newspapers in Jordan published as a headline, “Ramadan is the holy month and also is the month of jihad in Baghdad.” The editor-in-chief of this newspaper is a former senior advisor at the Royal Court, Mr. Ahmad Selama, and his son has replaced him at the Royal Court. 

Spreading terrorism in Jordan is a bad idea and your government must stop this.

The other comment that I just want to make is about the rights of the Palestinians in Jordan. There are about 2.8 million Palestinians in Jordan. They make over 50 percent of the population, but their rights have been stripped away from them. Twenty-five percent of the cabinet members are only Palestinians. I would like to hear from you, candidly, on these two issues, because they are very important to everyone. 

Thank you.

DR. MARWAN MUASHER: Thank you. You know, the Jordanian government has been accused of many things in the past. This is the first time that I hear an accusation that we are spreading terrorism. I don’t -- I think the record speaks for itself on the issue of terrorism. I think we have been at the forefront of fighting against terrorism, not only in the region, but in the world. And I need to remind people that we have fought al Qaeda 10 years before the United States started to do that. 

The fact that there are newspapers that are siding -- and there are, absolutely -- siding with one faction or the other is not a signal of spreading terrorism, but rather a signal that diversity is tolerated in Jordan. The fact remains that as long as people do not pursue their objectives through violent means and the freedom of expression is protected -- and we have taken measures to further this protection of the freedom of expression rather than curtail it -- it makes no difference whether the editor-in-chief was an ex official at the Royal Court or not. I can point to countless officials who at one time were members of government and at others were members of the opposition. The fact remains that the Jordanian government is serious in action -- and not words -- about fighting terrorism, and we continue to coordinate this effort very closely with many countries in the world, in the region and in the world, including the U.S.

The issue of Palestinians in Jordan, or Jordanians of Palestinian issue, is an issue that has been with us for some time and an issue that the country is looking at in very serious terms. And as part of the political process we are talking about a new election law that is more representative. We are talking about political party development and we are talking about freedom of expression. And while I agree that things are not perfect, but I think that what we are doing on reform is something that is unparalleled in the whole region. We have just published a plan which is far-reaching in terms of what we need to do, not just on this issue, but on other issues that range from women’s rights to a new election law to political party development to judicial reform, and the list is long. And I think that we have already made some tangible progress there that I’ll be happy to give you details of.

LEE HAMILTON: Before going to the next question let me recognize the U.S. ambassador to Jordan, Edward Gnehm, is here. We’re delighted to have him here. The Egyptian ambassador is here, Mr. Farmey (ph), and delighted to have him as well. Thank you very much for coming. 

We’ll go to the question over here.

COL. DUTTA (ph): Colonel Dutta, ex Indian Army, member Foreign Policy Association. 

Your excellency, with your reference to Islam being totally uncompromisable in the Arab world, what are your views on the provisional constitution of Iraq, especially in reference to the autonomy for Kurdistan and its attitude on secularism, not Islam?

DR. MARWAN MUASHER: We have welcomed the adoption of an interim constitution or basic law by the Iraqis. I think this is a step in the right direction, and it is a step that was arrived at by Iraqis, without the interference of anyone else. This is Iraqis choosing for themselves how they want to govern their own affairs. Their reference to Islam is not unlike the Jordanian reference to Islam. In Jordan, Islam is the official religion of the state, but it is one of the sources of legislation, it is not the only source of legislation in the country. And as such, they do not differ from what we do in Jordan in any way. 

As I said, it is not my, really, right to interfere in the details of that interim arrangements which have been arrived at by Iraqis. Our concern as a neighboring state, our concern as a state that is living in the region, is for a political system that does not lead to the dismemberment of Iraq. We have made these concerns in very candid terms with the Iraqis. We have been assured by the Iraqis that this is indeed their intention, to keep the country together, to keep it united, and we would like to help them do that. Beyond that, it is totally up to the Iraqis to choose their system of government.

LEE HAMILTON: Question over here.

BARBARA SLAVIN (sp): Mr. Minister, a pleasure to see you. Barbara Slavin from USA Today.

I wanted to ask whether you’re concerned, in the Iraqi transition that will be going on, about the role of the international community, that there may not be a sufficient international role particularly after June 30? We have a situation where we’ll have, perhaps, an expanded Iraqi governing council, a huge new U.S. embassy, but it’s not clear what, if any, international role there will be, what kind of international referee there might be on this political process. Have you raised that here in Washington, and what are you hearing? 

Thank you.

DR. MARWAN MUASHER: Well, we have all been encouraged by the increasing role of the United Nations, by the fact that the United Nations is coming back to Iraq. We would like to see an even bigger role for the United Nations in the months to come. The United Nations should not limit its operations in Iraq to humanitarian needs, but should be very much part and parcel of the political process that is going on. And I think we are starting to see signs of that. Certainly the United Nations should be the organization to supervise any elections for a permanent Iraqi government, if those elections are going to be perceived as fair, both inside Iraq and in the region. And it is something that we are strongly, strongly encouraging the United States and others to do.

Beyond June 30, yes, there is a concern because, although we do not expect the new Iraqi government to ask the coalition forces to leave -- and let us be frank -- the coalition forces leaving today is a disaster because it will create a security vacuum that will be impossible to resolve. And this is why Jordan has been again proactive in helping train Iraqis to assume security responsibilities themselves. But we cannot talk about a withdrawal just because a new Iraqi government is in place before we make sure that this Iraqi government will be able to hold the country together. 

These are some of the issues that we continue to talk to our allies, both in the region and in the world, about.

MS. : (Off mike)-- do you think a new U.N. resolution would be required to set up some structure --

DR. MARWAN MUASHER:  This has been suggested, particularly by the Iraqis who do want a new U.N. resolution. And, yes, I think that would be helpful.

LEE HAMILTON: A question here and then there’ll be a second question there.

MS. HUDA TAWFIQ: Huda Tawfiq, al-Ahram newspaper, Egypt. 

Mr. Minister, you just suggested that Israel should be committed to the third phase of the plan. And you know that we are approaching 2005, the plan is dead, and even if Israel will commit, it will not pay at the end or now or later. So is there any idea or suggestion that you start from the last phase of the Roadmap for both sides? Is it feasible in this year?

DR. MARWAN MUASHER:  In an election year, I’ll let you answer this. (Laughter.) The plan is not dead. I want to emphasize this. The plan is undergoing serious difficulties, but it would be very dangerous to say that the Roadmap is dead because saying that is saying that the two-state solution idea is dead, and no one in the region -- at least not us -- would accept the death of the two-state solution. 

Now, that is why I say that if the Israeli withdrawal is to take place anyway, it’s better to take place in coordination with us and in the right way, rather than take place in the wrong way. And this is what we need to emphasize. But also to emphasize that it is not a replacement of the Roadmap, but very much a part of it. And this is why we keep insisting on a clear commitment by Israel to all three phases of the Roadmap. You cannot commit to a Roadmap with 14 reservations. Either a commitment to the Roadmap, or no commitment. A commitment with 14 reservations is not, frankly, a serious commitment.

We are faced with a situation that requires immediate attention because, the fact of the matter is, the withdrawal is going to take place. Let us work to do this right, but let us also not forget what the end game will look like.

LEE HAMILTON: A question here.

JENNIFER BREMER: Jennifer Bremer with Keenan Institute. 

Thank you for your very thoughtful remarks. One of the greatest challenges, it seems to me at least, within Iraq is the legacy of hostility between the Sunni and the Shi’a, and also of course between the Sunni and the Kurd. What do you see as the role for the broader Islamic community in promoting more dialogue, interfaith dialogue, along those lines, particularly regarding other minority-majority situations in the region?

DR. MARWAN MUASHER: Well, it’s very much an issue of political rights, rather than interfaith dialogue, frankly, in Iraq. I mean, what we are worried about is, as I said, majority rule without minority rights. It doesn’t matter what the religious identification of the next ruler of Iraq is going to be, as long as every Iraqi citizen feels like he or she is an equal citizen with equal rights. If a feeling emerges that the ones in power are going to deny that right for other groups in the country, it’s a sure recipe for civil war. This is what we are talking about. We are not advocating a particular religion to rule Iraq. This is something that Iraqis, and Iraqis alone, should decide, what the political affiliation or the religious affiliation of any next ruler or any system of government, so long as minority rights are protected. If that is the case, it shouldn’t matter.

LEE HAMILTON: Okay, question here.

HAROD LATOOM (ph): Harod Latoom. 

Thank you very much, Your Excellency. You just mentioned the elections here in the U.S. and I had a question with regards to that. To what extent has your visit sort of been involved with the elections process? Have you had meetings on Capitol Hill? Has there been different reactions from the Democrats and the Republicans to Iraq or the Arab-Israeli process? And specifically have you met with John Kerry yet? 

Thank you.

DR. MARWAN MUASHER:  No, my visit has nothing to do with the election process in the United States – (laughs) -- not that I can influence it anyway. This is purely an internal matter. We meet, of course, with Democrats and Republicans at all times. Our relationship with the United States extends beyond any particular party in the United States and we have had very strong relationships, both when the Democrats were in power, and when the Republicans are in power. So without interfering in any way in the domestic election process, we maintain good relations with everyone.

LEE HAMILTON: Answered just like a foreign minister should answer the question. (Laughter.) 

We have a question here.

EUGENE BYRD (sp): Yeah, can we have something to do with the Jordanian elections next time? (Laughter.) 

I’m Eugene Byrd from Paul Finley’s (sp) Council For the National Interest. You mentioned the Arab League. The United States has never recognized the Arab League, and yet increasingly in the last couple of years, the Arab League has become more important in terms of the peace process, and you think that it will have a new initiative coming up. The Greater Middle East Peace Initiative -- or the Greater Middle East Initiative, I guess it’s called, which is being introduced at the G-8 in June, what’s the relationship of that to the United States becoming more Arab-nation oriented in its attempts to find solutions to these problems in the Middle East? We don’t seem to have a policy in that regard, and have you made this point with the administration?

DR. MARWAN MUASHER:  Well, the point does not have to do with whether the United States recognizes the Arab League or not. The fact of the matter is the Arab League is a reflection of the collective will of Arab states. And to the extent that that collective will can translate itself into a set of principles that the region would commit to, this has far-reaching repercussions, irrelevant of whether the United States acknowledges the League or not. 

Frankly, our objective -- and I’m very candid about this -- our objective is for the G-8 not to issue a statement. We do not want a statement from the G-8. We want a statement from the Arab world. And if a statement is to be issued at the G-8, it should be in response to the statement made by the Arab world, and not an attempt to impose a blueprint on the Arab world. 

I have to, once again, emphasize that we can only say this if the Arab world is ready to move seriously in this manner, and I think it is. And we would very much welcome a statement in response to the needs as expressed by the region, rather than a blueprint that attempts to impose a one-for-all solution on every country of the region.

LEE HAMILTON: We’ll begin to wrap it up here. Quickly here and then Ben will have the last question.

MR. ABDEL-ILAH BANI HASSSAN: Abdel-Ilah Bani Hassan. Thank you very much for this flag of United States. This flag make the democracy, made democracy in Middle East. I speak always with people in Jordan and others. They love to see America over there all the time. 

My question is why in Jordan there is law, they call it (redline ?) nobody can criticize the king. When the people of Jordan also elect their prime minister, nobody knows in Jordan how much the king or -- he not pay tax. He not pay tax, the king, Abdullah, and all the officials over there, not pay tax. I pay the tax of the -- I’m U.S. citizen and Jordanian citizen. I pay tax. And all the aid go there to the rich people over there. 

We need prime minister elect by the people Jordanian. We need to be Jordan of people they can control their royal family. This is the real democracy. Not the human rights about the woman. Woman, they have human rights long time in Jordan and others, but this is the human rights: free express, free elections for prime minister. And this is the truth, this is the real democracy. Not just you -- we relax and, okay, when we solve that problem between Israel and Palestine. We need elect the prime minister in Jordan. 

Thank you.

DR. MARWAN MUASHER:  Thank you. 

Let me differ with you on many issues, including the issue of whether woman have their full rights in Jordan. I don’t agree with you on this and if you ask any woman in Jordan, she will tell you that as well. The king is not a contentious issue, it’s not a controversial issue in Jordan. And if you ask all political factions in Jordan -- and I mean all, from the far right to the far left, from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Communists -- the issue of the king is not controversial. The king is the preserver of the constitution, and this is not unlike many systems around the world where the king acts in this manner. 

But moving beyond this, yes, we are moving to a system of parliamentary democracy. The fact of the matter -- I mean, parliamentary in a political party sense. The fact of the matter is today Jordanians don’t vote for political parties, even when they are free to do so, as you know. But the number of Jordanians that are members of political parties is less than 1 percent of the electorate. It is not a healthy sign, but it’s a fact of life. 

It is not because we wish this to be the case. What we are undergoing in Jordan is reform process that attempts to look at this political party development so that we can one day arrive at a stage where, indeed, the prime minister might very well, you know, be a product of elections and the party that rules. This is not the case today because Jordanians still have to vote away from political parties and for their tribal clan, or what have you. It’s exactly the system that we are trying to change in the country.

LEE HAMILTON: We’re very pleased to have with us the ambassadors of Kuwait and Yemen and Tunisia here this afternoon, as well. And we’ll conclude with a question from Ben.

BEN RHODES (sp): Hi, Ben Rhodes at the Wilson Center. 

My question is how do you see the future of regional economic integration in these reforms including, perhaps, trade agreements like the U.S.-Jordanian Free Trade Agreement being extended for a kind of regional free trade initiative?

DR. MARWAN MUASHER:  Economic integration is a must in the region. I think one of the faults that we’ve had in the Arab League before is we’ve over-emphasized the political dimension and did not do enough about the economic one. And as a result, we did not have economic interests that are interrelated in a way that would help drive political positions. The fact is, in the Arab world today that less than 10 percent of trade is interregional of Arab trade with the world, and we are just about the only region in the world that does not trade with itself. 

This is starting to change. There are attempts to change that, whether it is through partnership agreements between Arab countries and the European Union, whether it is through for example our own agreement with the United States, which has really increased our exports from $10 million in ’99 to $640 million last year. The United States today is Jordan’s number one export destination. But that is not enough. We need to encourage inter-Arab trade, interregional trade. 

And last week, for example, four Arab countries -- Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan -- signed what is called the (Arab Era ?) Agreement where they would act as one unit in terms of their economic relationship with the European Union. We hope that more countries will join this agreement and that this would, in some way, provide a beginning for better Arab economic integration. 

The upcoming summit in Tunisia is going to discuss this issue as one of the main issues if Arab League reform is to be attempted. It’s to concentrate more on our economic interrelationships, rather than just on political positions.

LEE HAMILTON: Okay. Let’s express our appreciation to Minister Muasher.

(Applause.)

We stand adjourned.

END