I read the interview with Interior Minister Mazen Al-Faraya, published by Al Jazeera Net and conducted by the brilliant colleague Mohammad Tarawneh. Several interconnected themes stood out to me, all expressed calmly and without tension.
اضافة اعلان
The minister's language did not lean toward exaggeration or alarmism despite the sensitivity of the files he discussed. This is a shrewd approach, because sensitive issues should be raised without causing an internal backlash that breeds narrow horizons, a sense of hardship and anxiety about the future. The difference is striking compared with some diagnoses of the crises surrounding Jordan, where we read expressions that undermine Jordanians' morale.
Among the most important domestic themes was the minister's talk of prison overcrowding reaching 200 percent, the need for radical solutions, the existence of alternative sentences, and a committee studying possible solutions, particularly given the number of people wanted for judicial enforcement in various cases. He also addressed administrative detention and explained the reasons for resorting to it.
My comment on this point is that the need for a general or special amnesty is pressing, even though the state does not favor discussing the idea of an amnesty every two years. How would the law be applied, and where would its prestige be, if every offender were released from prison every two years? The answer is simple: reality imposes different conditions. A former justice minister once told me that more than fifty percent of those in prison are there on drug-related charges, in an effort to put to shame anyone calling for an amnesty. In truth, drug cases can be excluded from any amnesty, while the amnesty could cover categories such as cases that have been settled by reconciliation and, in particular, public-right cases. Types of special amnesty could also be tailored for those who have served half their sentence, for example.
In any case, this is an important point, while the other important point concerns the dangers gathered in neighboring countries, Palestine and Syria. Notably, the drug fronts are no longer Syrian or Iraqi, as they once were, but now extend to drones being sent from occupied Palestine, whose occupation signals threats to us in the form of mass displacement, the bridges file, and also drug cases. This is a triangle of dangers that cannot be downplayed under any circumstances, especially at this particular moment.
The most important theme in the interview, in all its details, concerns the Syrian file: security coordination with the Syrians, the refugee file here in Jordan, the nature of the dangers in southern Syria, and drug smuggling. Anyone reading the details will realize there is Jordanian-Syrian cooperation, and we naturally need this coordination. Perhaps beyond the minister's words, the border with Syria appears more dangerous today, with the possibility of threats spreading from western Iraq to Jordan and Syria, and with extremist groups active across the borders among the three countries, which makes coordination with the Syrians, and even the Iraqis, essential in the coming period.
The interview may have seemed technical in its questions and answers, but it was also political, because it expressed security and geopolitical challenges that directly affect Jordan's stability. The timing of the interview also appeared well considered, especially since the minister does not speak often and chooses the timing of his public statements with great precision.
