Islamic Movement in Jordan

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Literature Review
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

This paper is based on the topic of international relations. The focus of the paper is on the Jordanian Islamic movement called Islamic Action Front (IAF); which is an affiliate of the Jordanian Muslim brotherhood movement. The paper looks at the IAF’s relationship with the government of Jordan with special attention to the foreign policy of the IAF.

The discussion is based on the tenets of two international theories namely realism and neo realism. It is argued that the IAF’s foreign policy is majorly influenced by its intention to form alliances with other Islamic movements outside Jordan with a view of increasing its popularity and political influence in Jordan and possibly take the leadership of the country to emulate its sister movement (Hamas) of Palestine which was elected into office in 2006.

The paper starts with a literature review which constitutes the concepts of international relations theory, realism and neo realism. This is followed by an integration of theory with the foreign policy of the IAF and the challenge facing the IAF and the government of Jordan as well as the future of the IAF in the politics of Jordan. Lastly is a conclusion which highlights the key points of the discussion.

Literature Review

What is international relations theory?

A theory is a set of ideas which provide an explanation for something. Theories act as frameworks for guiding scholars and researchers in their work so as to avoid duplication of ideas or repetition of mistakes made by previous researchers or scholars. In international relations, theories are used to explain the relationships between nations of the world. The theories look at the philosophies which shape the relationships between nations and the key interests of the nations in international relations (Acharya & Buzan 2009).

Various theories have different explanations about why, how and to what extent do nations interact. However, the overriding principal in all international relations theories is that nations relate for specific interests. In their relations, nations endeavour to create a win, win situation which is characterized by a symbiotic kind of relationship. The key elements of international relations theory include realism, neo realism, constructivism and globalization (Brown & Ainley 2009).

Realism

This is a state centered international relations approach which looks at states as the key actors in international politics. The theory is based on the works of historical writers such Rousseau, Machiavelli and Thucydides (Edkins & Vaughan-Williams 2009). The main argument of realism is that international relations are characterized by anarchy, in which nations interact for their selfish interests. Realism therefore negates the mutual understanding of nations in their relations and puts more emphasis on the struggle of nations to amass as much resources as possible in order to advance their own interests. With realism, economic success is the leading interest in international relations (Booth & Smith 1995).

Neo realism

Neo realism is a reformulation of classical realism. Its key proponent is Kenneth Waltz, who outlined it in a book titled ‘Theory of International Politics’ published in 1979 (Wiktorowicz 2001). For the last decade, the neo realist approach has gained popularity in the field of international relations. The theory is critical of classical realism because of classical realism’s persistence use of the concept of human nature in the explanation of relationships between nations. According to neo realists, international relations are shaped more by the structural constrains rather than human nature. They are also shaped by the anarchic principle which implies that all states have similar needs but what separates them is their capabilities to achieve those needs (Joffé 2002).

Nations therefore have to be very careful when choosing which nations they can partner with in their efforts to increase capabilities of meeting their needs. What this means is that nations have to enter into a relationship only with nations which have the potential of improving their capability of meeting their needs. If this is not done carefully, some nations end up losing and others benefiting from the relationship thus creating a situation referred to as security dilemma (Baldwin 1993).

In order for nations to improve their capabilities of meeting their needs in the international platform, they engage in what is referred to as internal and external balancing of power. Internal balancing of power entails the acceleration of economic growth and investing more in military. External balancing of power entails entering into alliances with other nations so as to keep the power of other powerful nations or alliances of nations at check (Baldwin 1993).

The IAF

This is the mainstream Muslim brotherhood political party in Jordan. According to Nathan Brown who is a renowned scholar in international relations theory, the IAF is arguably the only non extremist Islamic political party in the world. This is because for many years, it has worked with the government of Jordan with sometimes having some of its leaders appointed to key government departments (Tal 2005).

As Nathan argues in an article titled “Jordan and Its Islamic Movement: The Limits of Inclusion”, the relationship between the IAF and the government has been characterized by high degrees of cooperation as opposed to rivalry. However, the government has been trying to maintain the IAF as a docile opposition rather than having it adopt the model of extremism which the government considers as a recipe for chaos (Brown 2010).

Of late, the government of Jordan and the IAF have been considering themselves as starch political rivals taking the view that it should not be business as usual as far as their relationship is concerned. The two actors have been driven by their selfish interests in their relationship. As outlined in the theory, actors in the international relations are guided by self interest and they form alliances or work together as long as they all benefit from their relationship (Brown 2006).

On its part, the government of Jordan has opted to co-opt the IAF with the hope of taming Islamic extremism while the IAF has opted to work with the government of Jordan for the hope that the government of Jordan would protect its interests. However, the main reason for disagreement between the two is their relationship with other allies outside Jordan (Clark 2004).

The government of Jordan has for long been considered as one of the key allies of the United States (US) in the Middle East. It has worked with the US especially in the support of Israeli and also during US insurgency in Iraq. This has for long haunted the IAF because it does not support the way the US deals with the issue of terrorism, with the IAF having the conviction that the US has been biased against the Muslims in the Middle East and the world in general (Zittrain 2010).

The IAF on its part has been inclined towards forming alliances with other Islamic movements in the Middle East especially with Hamas and Hezbollah. However, the recent election into office of the Hamas in 2006 has served as an awakening call for the IAF to reconsider its long term good relations with the Jordan regime and consider open rebellion instead of cooperation with the government of Jordan (Watson 2006).

The success of Hamas in the election can be attributed to its resilience and resistance of western criticisms and sanctions. This has made the IAF think that it can actually work independently and go against the Jordan regime and western powers and eventually win future elections (Quandt 2001).

The current IAF foreign policy is aimed at seeking moral, social and financial support from the Hamas in its quest for political supremacy in Jordan. The IAF wishes to apply pressure on the government of Jordan to support the Hamas government gain legitimacy in the region. However this may not be as easy as the IAF may think given that the Jordan regime has for long worked with the former Palestine government which was pushed to the opposition following the election of the Hamas into office in 2006. The IAF is also working with the mainstream Muslim brotherhood of Egypt with the aim of getting support to weaken the Jordan government and boost its chances of winning future elections (Mishal & Sela 2006).

Conclusion

International relations are majorly characterized by the pursuit of self interest. According to neo realists, actors in the international platform are driven by the desire to strengthen their political, social and economic positions so as to become a force to reckon at the international platform. Actors therefore carefully select their allies with a key focus of entering into alliances which would enable each of the actors become stronger. These alliances are mostly characterized by compromises. The IAF has been working with the Hamas of Palestine and the Muslim brotherhood of Egypt to gain support to win elections in Jordan. On its part, the government of Jordan has been working with the US, Israeli and other allies to strengthen its popularity in Jordan.

Reference List

Acharya, A, & Buzan, B 2009, Non-Western International Relations Theory, Routledge, London.

Baldwin, D.A 1993. Neo realism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate, Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

Booth, K, & Smith, S 1995, International Relations Theory Today, Polity Press, Oxford.

Brown, C, & Ainley,K 2009, Understanding International Relations, 4^th, Ed, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Brown, N.J 2006, Jordan and its Islamic movement: the limits of inclusion?, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.

Brown, N.J 2010, Between religion and politics, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.

Clark, A.K 2004, Islam, charity, and activism: middle-class networks and social welfare in Egypt, Jordan, and Yemen, Bloomington, Indiana Univ. Press, Bloomington.

Edkins , J, & Vaughan-Williams, N 2009, Critical Theorists in International Relations, Routledge, London.

Joffé, G 2002, Jordan in transition: [1990 – 2000], Hurst & Company, London.

Mishal, S & Sela, A 2006, The Palestinian Hamas: vision, violence, and coexistence; [with a new introduction], Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

Quandt, W 2001, Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli Conflict since 1967, University of California Press, Berkeley CA.

Tal, N 2005, Radical Islam in Egypt and Jordan, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton.

Watson, T.J 2006, Between world wars: FDR and the age of isolationism Choices for the 21st century, Watson Institute for International Studies, Providence, RI.

Wiktorowicz, Q 2001, The management of Islamic activism: Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and state power in Jordan, State Univ. of New York Press, Albany, NY.

Zittrain, L 2010, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: Patterns, Problems, and Possibilities, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN.

Click Here To Order Now!