Official Jordanian Perspectives
-
Solving Jordan’s Identity
Crisis
-
Reducing Government Spending
on Palestinian Refugees in Jordan
Now that the signing of the
Israeli-Jordanian peace agreement removed the political obstacles to an
active Jordanian involvement in the negotiations about the future of Palestinian
refugees, Jordan aims at achieving a solution which will provide a Palestinian
“right of choice” in favor or against the return to a “Palestinian entity”
(sic). Each Palestinian will then have to decide whether s/he considers
her/himself a Jordanian citizen or not (double citizenship will not be
permitted), and only then will the Jordanian society cease to be this complex
political body which is so difficult to rule. This interest outweighs common
concerns about the demographic and economic upheavals which will result
from a Palestinian mass departure from Jordan. It is commonly expected
that only a minority of Jordan’s Palestinians, mainly those living in the
refugee camps (248,000,i.e. 20%), would actually leave. The rest would
become full Jordanians without a split identity.
The “right of choice” favored
by Jordan is certainly not identical with the Palestinian demand for the
Right of Return which included the right to self-determination and the
option to return to an independent Palestinian state. For Jordan the question
of what kind of entity will be the option for its Palestinians is secondary:
even the model of Gaza and Jericho in its current dependent form fulfills
their purpose. In fact, the 70,000 - 100,000 Gazans living in Jordan without
Jordanian citizenship are already considered illegal residents and would
be requested to leave - if only the Israeli authorities would permit their
entry into the Gaza Strip.
Department of Palestinian
Affairs
Until 1970, the Jordanian
government had delegated the provision of services to Palestinian refugees
to its Ministry of Construction. In 1970, the Ministry of the Occupied
Territories (MOT) was established and an executive committee of the Ministry
took on responsibility for state services to Palestinian refugees in coordination
with UNRWA and the Joint Committee (Jordan-PLO). Following the 1989 administrative
separation between Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the
MOT was replaced by the Department of Palestinian Affairs (DPA) under the
auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
DPA services are similar
to UNRWA services and especially since the budgetary crisis of UNRWA the
DPA has had to finance a growing portion of the agency’s regular services.
Other than UNRWA, the DPA provides services to both Palestinian refugees
and displaced persons (195,000 families) in 13 camps, three of which are
not recognized by UNRWA. The DPA budget for services in the camps is 156
million JD (US $ 202,8 mil.) annually, i.e. more than the regular UNRWA
budget in Jordan.
The DPA is a participant
in the multilateral talks on refugee affairs, the four-party negotiations
on the 1967 displaced persons and in the meetings between UNRWA and its
donor states. DPA officials criticize the international donor countries’
financing of UNRWA - Peace Implementation Programs (PIP) almost exclusively
in the Gaza Strip. They demand that Jordan, which hosts 40% of the registered
refugee population, should be allocated a larger share of UNRWA’s budget;
international support should be “better spread, because peace must be tangible
not only in Gaza, but also outside the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”
DPA officials strongly dismiss
rumors concerning the resettlement of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon
in Jordan and emphasize that Jordan will not force anybody to leave: ”Our
priority is to establish the right to chose - either to return to a Palestinian
entity or to become full-fledged Jordanians. The only exemption are the
approximately 70,000 Gazan refugees living mainly in Gaza Camp near Jerash.
They are not citizens and according to the Jordanian position, they must
return to Gaza.”
[Source: Asem Ghoshe, Director
General, DPA; Abdul Karim Abu l-Haija, Director of Information and Public
Relations, DPA]
The Jordanian Delegation
[Dr. Ahmad Qatanani, member
of the Jordanian delegation to the multilateral talks on refugee affairs
and to the negotiations on the 1967 displaced persons talking with the
AIC-delegation; Amman, 22 March 1995; excerpts]
How are the multilateral
meetings on refugees evaluated by the Jordanian delegation? Are they dying?
What about the European and the US position in the multilaterals?
No, they are certainly not
dying. The multilateral simply deal with different issues than the negotiations
on the `67 displaced persons. Here we can talk about all dimensions of
the refugee problem. The Jordanian delegation has always emphasized the
political dimension of the refugee issue, but the EU and the US certainly
have not done so. but we must remember that we are still in the interim
period. The final status negotiations will start next year and then all
the political dimensions will and must be discussed, if there should be
peace. Because we cannot go on talking about water, health and Middle East
peace without tangible results. If so, there will be no peace. The multilateral
Steering Committee will meet in Switzerland in May; Canada will present
a vision for the interim period, the final status and for ten years from
now [See ”Negotiations Update”, below]
Is it true that Jordan was
reluctant to participate in the four-party committee for negotiations on
the 1967 displaced persons, at least until the Israeli-Jordanian peace
agreement?
Jordan was reluctant for
a short period only, only a few days after Oslo. We were not part of the
Oslo Accords and not part of this decision. But this was not the reason
for the delay of the negotiations on the matter. The call for the establishment
of the four-party committee was included in Article 8 of the Israeli-Jordanian
agreement and since then Jordan has been pushing for the start of the negotiations.
What is your evaluation of
the first meeting on `67 displaced persons in Amman on March 7? Was it
a success as suggested by the Palestinian delegation?
The first meeting did not
fix modalities for the return of the `67 displaced, only modalities for
the negotiations. This is a humble result and certainly not a success.
Maybe you could call it a success because usually the situation is so bad
and a meeting is in itself already a success. After all, the results are
weak and the Arab delegations are disappointed, because there was no reference
to UN-resolutions on refugees. The first technical meeting is scheduled
to take place within a month and will probably convene in Israel, maybe
in Tiberia. [See “Negotiations Update” below]
Which UN-resolutions serve
as terms of reference in both the multilateral and the four-party negotiations?
Until now, we do not have
a consensus on the terms of reference in the multilateral. The Arab position
is that UN-resolution 194 should be the basic terms of reference. This
has been rejected by both Israel and the US. In the four-party negotiations
on the 1967 displaced persons, the Arab delegations proposed UN-Security
Council resolution 237 as the term of reference. Israel objected any mentioning
of this resolution in the final statement of the first meeting in Amman.
What is the Jordanian experience
with the Israeli delegation in the multilateral talks?
The Israeli delegation is
always stalling and reluctant. They try to raise the refugee issue as a
“humanitarian issue” and raise objections to the composition of the Palestinian
delegation; at one point they even opposed the discussion of family reunification
as part of the agenda. However, the main contradiction is that we regard
the issue as a political issue with a humanitarian dimension, while the
Israelis handle the issue as a pure humanitarian one. More than four months
ago, we submitted a list of 6,500 names of persons whose ID cards were
declared invalid by the Israeli authorities, because we wanted to test
the reaction of the Israeli side. Until now we have not received a response.
We have heard much about
the sensitivity of the issue of Palestinian refugees in Jordan, even on
the level of gathering data ...
Yes, beyond the technical
problems, the issue is very sensitive. As a state you cannot simply categorize
your citizens into refugees, displaced and Jordanians. This is politically
problematic. Our position, however, is clear and unambiguous concerning
the Gazans living in Jordan. They are approximately 100,000 living mainly
in two camps (Gaza RC, Shneller RC). These Gazans do not have Jordanian
passports and according to our official position, they are staying illegally
in Jordan. They have two options: to apply for citizenship or to leave
for Gaza. |