A Tale Of Two Kingdoms

This was the title for my interview with the Jordan Business magazine in its May edition. Unfortunately the text is not accessible on their homepage but below you will find a rough cut of the interview.

I think Jordan Business wanted to make the interview with me because I wrote them a letter about a previous article that in my opinion didn’t reflect the full story behind the article. That Jordan Business actually responded by offering me the opportunity to talk about the Jordanian-Danish relations and some of the major issues we are facing is a sign of a professional attitude towards journalism that allows different points of view to be voiced. It was an offer that could not be refused. It is a pretty long text, and I am afraid that this clip does not reflect the very beautiful layout of the magazine and it’s cover page.

 

EYE ON DIPLOMACY

A Tale Of Two Kingdoms

It hasn’t been an easy start to Denmark’s first-ever mission to Jordan. In an exclusive interview with Jordan Business, Denmark’s Ambassador HE Thomas Lund-Sørensen, discusses the main areas of cooperation between the two kingdoms.

As one of the newest ambassa­dors to Jordan, Thomas Fouad Lund-Sørensen is having to find his feet very quickly -­ charged with a lot more than the regular round of diplomacy. His is a burden that many would shy away from: increasing trade between the two small kingdoms is quite a tall order, especially given at least some remnants of negative feeling still simmering across the region’s surface.

However, if his professional history, which dates back to 1990, is anything to go by, then his preparedness for the task at hand is undoubted. In an exclusive interview with Jordan Business, the Danish emissary describes what it’s like starting up Denmark’s mission in Jordan and what challenges lie ahead in the future.

 JB; Denmark only recently opened its embassy in Jordan, with the mission of “intensifying the al­ ready strong and amicable relations between the Hashemite King­dom of Jordan and the Kingdom of Denmark.” As the first Danish emissary to Jordan, what do you perceive as the main milestones to be achieved during your tenure?

 TS: This year, the Kingdoms of Jor­dan and Denmark both celebrate their 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties. The opening up of a new embassy in Amman is a clear signal from the Danish side of a wish to further deepen our relations. Den­ mark and Jordan resemble each other in many ways. Both are kingdoms. They have roughly the same size of population and are of a rather limited geographical area. None of the two countries are par­ticularly endowed with natural resources. However, we both share the same vision of peace and prosperity, and both coun­tries strive to become leaders within the new increasingly globalized economy. We both do that by investing in the only lasting resource that we have – our citi­zens and their ability to trade, produce, invent and provide services.

 The embassy’s staff and I have our work cut out. First and foremost on the agenda is, of course, to get this new embassy up and running. I believe this mission has been successful in recruiting a number of extremely well-qualified Jordanians. We are also continuously working on establishing a well-functioning network. To this end, and apart from the usual diplomatic network of government, politicians and officials, we have tried to reach out to other less formal circles, in­cluding bloggers, journalists, civil society organizations, business people and youth groups. This has been very rewarding as we try to better understand Jordanian society. The embassy is also focusing on new areas of cooperation that can ben­efit both countries. One obvious area is in the field of renewable energy, where Denmark is one of the world leaders and where Jordan has an apparent political, economical and security interest.

 Another area that we focus on is the ab­surdly small volume of trade between our two countries. Jordan’s annual exports to Denmark are a mere $1 million a year, while Danish exports to Jordan amounts to only about $50 million. If the embassy succeeds in making a posi­tive difference on this issue, I would consider it a major milestone.

 JB: Not long after your appoint­ment, you addressed, in an article entitled “Food Safety is Politics,” the food-poisoning crisis that be­sieged specific areas in Jordan to­ wards the latter part of 2007. You also mentioned that the European Commission has financed a twin­ning project between the Jordani­an Food and Drug Administration GFDA) and its Danish and Latvian counterparts. What has the project entailed, and what are some of the tangible benefits and transferable skills that have transpired from that cooperative initiative?

 TS: One of the first issues I got involved with in Jordan was the question of food safety. For the last three years, the Dan­ish Food Agency has been working closely with its Jordanian counterpart, the JFDA, in order to increase its capacity to tackle food safety issues and better prepare it for European Union (EU) Certification. This will eventually make it easier for Jordanian producers to ex­ port to the EU, and most likely to other regions, as well. Another outcome has been the drafting of the first Jordanian food law, which ensures that everybody knows who is responsible for what when it corries to food safety.

 What I really appreciate with this kind of cooperation is its twinning element; two organizations from Denmark and Jordan exchanged ideas and experiences around a common vision, which in this case was increased food safety. The twinning element focused on the transfer of professional knowledge, procedures and some hardware, but there is also a dia­logue going on between people and cul­tures. That will invariably increase the understanding between those involved. In this particular case, the project was so successful that it not only got the high­est marks from the EU commission, but it also gained so much popularity with­ in the Danish Food Agency that there was an internal competition among its employees to become part of the coop­eration with their Jordanian colleagues. On top of this, the project is important because it is relevant to all Jordanian citizens who – like their Danish opposite numbers – demand and expect good and safe food.

 To sum up, this project had the three ele­ments necessary for a successful outcome. It was relevant to the Jordanian citizen and the Jordanian economy; it was profession­ally important and produced concrete, tangible results; and it also increased the cultural and personal understanding be­ tween people and the organizations actu­ally involved in the project.

 JB: Denmark has been very active in supporting initiatives geared towards increasing cross-cultural and inter-religious dialogue and cooperation. Noteworthy is the Danish Youth Council, which or­ganized a meeting in Istanbul in 2007, bringing together 110 youth politicians from both Denmark and the Middle East. Other initiatives, supported by the government and other private institutions in Denmark, have also taken place. This especially includes the “Co­existence of Civilization” – an initiative chaired by Jordan’s Prince Hassan bin Talal. Can you explain why these projects are placed so highly on the agenda?

 TS: Since 2003, Denmark has been ac­tively involved in an increasing number of projects focused on the Arab world. This takes place within the “Partnership for Progress and Reform” in which Jordan is a participant. The Jordanian-Danish proj­ects are dialogue-oriented and, as with the JFDA project, they evolve around specific topics of interest to both countries. The two projects that have been signed most recently aim to extend the network of Family Protection Department shelters for abused children as well as to prevent torture and maltreatment in prisons. Other projects include training journalists in the techniques of investigative reporting, cooperation on children’s programs for television, the establishment of a Jor­danian ombudsman institution, a Dan­ish-Jordanian Youth centre, in addition to initiatives aimed at the empowerment of women in the labor market as well as at women’s rights issues. All these proj­ects are based on cooperation between a Danish partner – often a non-government organization (NGO) – and a number of Jordanian partners, which most often in­clude Jordanian NGOs and governmen­tal institutions.

 On top of these projects, the Danish government has, for a long time, been engaged in international dialogue activi­ties within the Alliance of Civilizations, the Anna Lindh Foundation and vari­ous other organisations and institutions. As a long time member of the European Union and an active participant in the Barcelona process, Denmark also par­ takes, on a regular basis, in meetings ‘With Arab countries on a wide range of different issues related to the coop­eration between the EU and the Arab world. There are also extensive bilateral contacts between Denmark and the Arab world on the ministerial level.

 All these projects and exchanges serve the same ultimate goal – to enhance the understanding between people and cultures and to increase the acceptance about our different ways of life in order to avoid misunderstanding and preju­dices. So projects that initially might seem rather small, locally-bound and closely focused do contribute to the same higher goal. That is why all these initiatives are so important and why we, on the Danish side, put so much empha­sis on their success and on our constant readiness for dialogue.

 JB: Denmark has been one of the very few countries that has re­sponded, both relatively swiftly and tangibly, to the Iraqi refugee crisis. Among the donors support­ing humanitarian relief efforts, it is noted that Denmark is the largest per capita donor, with just over $26 million contributed to the plight of Iraqis within Iraq and in neighbour­ing countries (including Jordan). At the same time, Denmark, together with Sweden, has taken in the larg­est number of Iraqi refugees. What, in your opinion, must the interna­tional community set its sights on to significantly alleviate this humanitarian calamity?

 TS: First of all, I would like to express Denmark’s, as well as my own appre­ciation, for Jordan’s generous attitude towards refugees generally over the past half century, and for the tremendous ef­fort that the Kingdom is putting forth with the current inflow of Iraqis to Jor­dan. The Danish minister for development cooperation paid a visit to Jordan in late February, where she held talks with Jordanian ministers on exactly this issue, and in the process, met with refugees and organizations assisting them. This has always been a key driving force behind Danish development-based aid and our foreign policy. This philosophy will con­tinue to guide our policy and, as afore­ mentioned, Denmark is one of the major donors in the efforts to help refugees and support their host countries.

 That being said, one of the actual chal­lenges facing Iraqi refugees, Jordan and the international donor community is their educational and economical situ­ation. In order for an entire generation not to lose out on a sustainable future, it is of the utmost importance that both Iraqi and Jordanian children continue to receive proper education while living in Jordan. At the same time, as subsidies are dismantled and prices go up, the refugees are running out of money and are facing more difficult economic situations than in previous years. These issues are high on the agenda of the international donor community; including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and they will constitute some of the priorities for 2008. What we all set our sights on, and actively work towards, is that the refugees will be able to return in safety to their home country.

 JB: The second reprinting of the cartoons, which re-offended millions of Muslims the world over, has left many questioning whether any justifiable reason exists to what many believe is a lack of journalistic in­tegrity, sensitivity and humanism. You have noted in a letter sent to Jordan Business that the reprinting of the cartoons “took place against the background of an assassination plan to kill the cartoonist,” adding that “according to most of the Dan­ish newspapers, the cartoon was reprinted in order to document why this group of persons wanted to kill the man behind the cartoon.” With such a notorious topic at the nexus of this debate, do you think reprint­ing the cartoons was absolutely es­sential in reporting the foiled assas­sination attempt?

 TS: The question that you posed goes straight to the heart of the matter. As a government representative, I will empha­size what the Danish prime minister has said time and again, and I quote: “I con­demn any expression, action or indication that attempts to demonise people on the basis of their religion or ethnic back­ ground.” In another statement, the prime minister said that he personally would never have chosen to depict religious sym­bols in this way.

 However, the point is that no Danish edi­tor-in-chief would ask the prime minister or the government what content to include within any newspaper. This is solely the responsibility of the editor. Otherwise, it could be considered an attempt at cen­sorship. Looking into the Danish Consti­tution, Article 77 states that “any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in speech, pro­vided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice. Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced.” Article 77 is thus a clear ex­ample of a constitutional right of freedom of speech, with the explicit limitation that anyone may be held answerable in court.

 Thus, as a government representative an­swering the question as to whether or not it was essential to reprint the cartoon in re­lation to the assassination plan, the answer is that the editors-in-chief to a large ma­jority thought so and did so accordingly. What opinion the government had on this issue is, in this respect, of less importance since the government has neither a legal basis nor preventive means to interfere in editors’ choices prior to the publication. In addition, the official Jordanian point of view on the cartoon was well known be­fore the republication, as was the Danish point of view, as I have just explained.

 Not everybody agreed with the decision of the editors. According to an opinion poll that was carried out sometime after the reprint, a majority of Danes found the reprinting unjustified, which, as re­ ported in Danish newspapers, was a sur­prise to some of the editors.

 JB: Many observers of all back­ grounds have noted that while the debate of “freedom of speech” is a human right in itself, it, as ev­erything else, must have limits. In fact, many have pointed that had the images depicted the Holocaust or the killings of Armenians in Turkey, serious measures would have been taken to stop their re-printing. What are your thoughts on this matter?

 TS: From my point of view, I see things differently. The Danish Constitution does not work with double standards. The abolishment of preventive censorship gave every citizen a constitutional right to express their opinion, however question­ able that opinion might seem. There is, to my knowledge, no exception to that rule in Denmark. As I said before, there are indeed limits to the freedom of speech ­ since the author can be held answerable in court for his publication. This is the way that we understand an essential part of our democracy. Just as an example of the separation between the government and the press, there exist no government­ owned newspapers in Denmark.

 JB: Given the losses sustained by Danish corporations due to what many have noted as the “single biggest boycott in history,” how damaging, economically or otherwise, do you believe the boycott, led by the “Messengers of Allah Unite Us” campaign will be to Danish-Jordanian relations? Are Danish policy­ makers worried over the adverse effects this and other boycott cam­paigns may have on Danish trade with countries in the Middle East?

 TS: Danish policymakers are aware of the political ramifications of a campaign that, at one point in time, did seem to be more intense in Jordan than elsewhere in the region. The media campaign has distorted the image of Denmark to, in my opinion, an unreasonable degree. On the other hand, it is for the editors in Jordan to choose what to print even if we, in Den­ mark, don’t like what they print. It is, of course, also up to the parliament to debate what they deem as the most important is­ sues, politically. As I started out by saying, the new embassy has its work cut out for it for some time to come, mainly with our focus on what we call public diplomacy.

 Working on international trade issues throughout my career, I have a sincere dislike for boycotts. Trade and tour­ism are the most important factors in creating beneficial relations, peace­ful ties and prosperity between people and countries. Cutting away trade is in many respects harmful to development, especially if you are a country that lives off trade as Denmark and many other small, open economies do.

 First and foremost, a number of hard­ working Jordanian importers of Danish products have been harmed by the boycott. Ironically, they are probably just as hurt by the cartoons’ reprint than any other Jordanian citizen, but on top of that they and their employees suffer economically. In reality, along with Dan­ish exporters, these Jordanian importers have absolutely nothing to do with the reprint and have no influence on the de­cision. On the other hand, consumers the world over are acting politically ev­ery day. It is a phenomenon that business people are getting accustomed to and which they take into consideration when planning new investments. No country is safe from being exposed to a boycott, but some are less vulnerable than others.

 In fact, as many in this part of the world and Europe will attest to, the only way to overcome misunderstandings and mis­conceptions about each other is through an intensified dialogue, where we learn to understand and accept our similarities and differences. You can really question whether boycotts – as opposed to dialogue – are helpful in achieving that goal.

 No one today knows what costs the boy­cott has levied on Danish companies, or Jordanian importers. It depends on many factors. However, as I said in the beginning, Danish exports to Jordan are low, only at about $50 million a year. On a larger scale, the total Danish exports to the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) are about 3% of our total global exports.

 JB: The continuing downward spi­ral of the US dollar, along with high rates of inflation and the lifting of oil subsidies, make for dire eco­nomic circumstances for the aver­ age Jordanian citizen. In contrast to Denmark, which arguably has the world’s most developed welfare safety net, a genuine welfare state in Jordan is, as of yet, in a challises ­ this despite recent announcements by the government of providing economic assistance to those in fi­nancial need. Can Denmark effec­tively contribute to the strengthen­ing of Jordan’s safety net by passing on expertise or otherwise?

 TS: While it is true that the Danish welfare state is held in high esteem by many, it is also true that this comes at the price of having the highest tax lev­els in the world. The interesting thing is that although many complain about taxes, only a few will give up some of the basic safety net features in order to lower them.

 Every citizen in Denmark, regardless of his origin, is covered by the social securi­ty that provides free medical services for all, pensions for people unable to retain a job or those on disability. Educational institutions, including high schools and universities, are free, while schools for vo­cational training are mostly free. More­ over, everybody is assured of an old-age pension. Corruption is, in all practical purposes, non-existent. I could go on. If I should point to two different areas based on my rather short experience in Jordan where Denmark has something to offer, it would be in the area of voca­tional training and – now I will be really unpopular – taxes.

 Our professional associations are very strong in vocational training and cours­es. This training is in high demand and participation is considered essential to a large part of the Danish workforce. What is also important is to consider that having a job as a carpenter, plumber, painter and mechanic is something really valuable. These jobs are mostly well paid and the skill sets are in such high demand that it is often difficult to fix an appointment. Better training and a revalorization of these job categories in Jordan are probably things that could be looked into in cooperation with Danish partners. Not everybody has to be­come a lawyer or a doctor.

 Since the Danish welfare state is funded by taxes, we have become world champions in taxation. Our tax system is highly ef­ficient and progressive towards the higher income brackets. Most income tax is taken from the source electronically, without the interference of the taxpayer. Tax evasion is extremely difficult, and people in gener­al feel they get value and service for their tax money. So I guess that there is some­ thing to be inspired by from the Danish taxing system for many countries.

 JB: Returns from hi-tech agri­culture form a significant com­ponent of Denmark’s market economy. Are there any areas of cooperation between Denmark and Jordan that can be pursued in this regard?

 TS: Agriculture as such is no longer a very important part of the Danish economy, even though this can change again in light of the rapid global in­ crease in demand for food. We are still very strong when it comes to indus­trial products related to the agro-food sector. Every year, there is a huge fair called Agromek in Denmark – and al­ most every year a number of Jordanian business people attend the event. I can only encourage more Jordanians to participate next year.

 With regard to cooperation between our two countries, I am happy to men­tion a small agricultural project that Denmark has been running for a number of years. It involves a number of Danish experts who, together with Jor­danian and other neighbouring farmers and experts, exchange best practices and valuable knowledge on farming under somewhat difficult agricultural conditions.

 JB: Figures show that the consumption of renewable energy in Den­mark grew by 5% between 2006 and 2007. Statistics also show that Denmark generates around 20% of its electricity supply from wind energy. Given Jordan’s dependence on increasingly expensive import­ed oil, as well as the absolute need to develop alternative sources of energy, is renewable energy an area of in which Denmark can aid in Jordan’s development?

 TS: This is the single most important topic the embassy has been working on since September 2007. Soon, the world’s attention will focus on Denmark when an important UN conference on global cli­mate change will be held in Copenhagen towards the end of next year. The aim of the conference is to agree on a new am­bitious successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol. Energy and climate change go hand in hand. Jordan and Denmark have a lot in common in this field. Jor­dan today is facing the same challenges on energy as Denmark did in the early 1970s. As Jordan today suffers from de­pendence on high imported oil prices, so did Denmark at that time. However, successive Danish governments didn’t sit idle. With different initiatives, including a mix of the stick and carrot within the energy conservation sector, the renew­ able energy sector, the electricity sector and within the heating sector, Denmark has managed to keep its energy con­sumption level at 0% growth compared to 25 years ago. In other words, we con­sume the same amount of energy today as we did in 1980. Does that mean that there was no economic growth in Den­ mark during the last 25 years? No, the Danish economy grew by 70% during the same time span. So we broke the dogma of growth equals energy, which, apart from the positive economic effect, is also helpful to the environment and the climate.

 I strongly believe that Jordan can be in­spired by many of the initiatives that we have undertaken in Denmark to tackle our own energy challenges, and the em­bassy is actively engaged in this discus­sion with our partners in Jordan .•

Freedom of press and Human Rights Watch

A lot of local and regional blogs are talking about freedom of press these days. It is certainly an extremely important topic that should never be ignored. There is a saying that “only the press keeps democracy clean”. It hints at the tabloids in the western world that are often at odds with government – when investigating those in power of corruption, mismanagement and scandals.

While googling for the newest information about the state of freedom of press I came across this interesting international human rights law analysis from Human Rights Watch entitled “When Speech offends” in reference to the first printing of the cartoons and other events. The full text can be read at the HRW homepage but for easy reference the core part of the text is reproduced here. While I – for the time being and in light of an ongoing legal investigation – reserve my opinion on this matter I would really appreciate to get your reaction to this analysis.

“What does international human rights law tell us about the dispute over the cartoons?  
 
International human rights law cannot answer all questions raised about the cartoons. Human rights law obliges governments to protect religious freedom and religious minorities, but, as explained below, the cartoon controversy mostly concerns the limits imposed by human rights law, particularly the right to freedom of expression, on governments’ ability to suppress speech. In prohibiting governmental censorship of certain kinds of speech, human rights law does not suggest endorsement of that speech. Similarly, while the right to freedom of expression requires governments to allow speech that they and many others might find offensive, misguided, or even immoral, human rights law cannot answer the question of whether it was wise or proper for Jyllands-Posten and others to publish the cartoons. Nor can human rights law dictate the posture that governments should take toward the cartoons in their public comments-whether, for example, they should clarify that the content does not reflect official views or express their belief that it was unwise to have used the freedom of expression in this way. Rather, human rights law, in relevant part, speaks only to whether governments must permit such speech, regardless of whether they endorse the views expressed.  
 
The cartoons caused extreme offense to many Muslims-why should the right to freedom of expression protect such cartoons?  
 
The right to freedom of expression is a fundamental one, necessary to protect the exercise of all other human rights in democratic societies because it is essential for holding governments accountable to the public. Freedom of expression is particularly necessary with respect to provocative or offensive speech, because once governmental censorship is permitted in such cases, the temptation is enormous for government officials to find speech that is critical of them to be unduly provocative or offensive as well. The freedom to express even controversial points of view is also important for societies to address key political, social, and cultural issues, since taboos often mask matters of considerable public concern that are best addressed through honest and unfettered debate among those holding diverse points of view. Although international human rights law does impose certain limits on the right to freedom of expression (discussed below), the important functions served by that right require interpreting those limitations narrowly.  
 
Aren’t pictures as hateful as these properly considered “hate speech”?  
 
Not all speech that is hateful constitutes “hate speech” that must be prohibited under international human rights law. Advocacy of religious hatred can be suppressed only when it constitutes imminent incitement to unlawful acts of discrimination, hostility or violence. In addition, to constitute such incitement, the discrimination, hostility or violence must be urged or promoted by the speech in question. It is not incitement when opponents of speech or those who find the speech offensive use violence, since that would give censorship over any speech to those who are willing to employ violence to attack it. In this case, the main complaint against the cartoons is that they offend Islam, not that they have inspired acts of violence, criminal harassment or tangible discrimination against Danish or other Muslims. Speech that targets a religion for disrespect, as opposed to speech that targets believers for unlawful acts, is protected, however offensive it may be.  
 
Why not ban the cartoons as blasphemy?  
 
Many European nations still have blasphemy laws, although they are seldom enforced. Some of these laws prohibit blasphemy against only certain religions, such as Christianity. Such laws are clearly discriminatory and may reflect broader societal discrimination. Moreover, many of these laws should not be on the books at all. Although the European Court of Human Rights has upheld some of these laws, it is far from clear why certain religious beliefs should be protected from critical discussion or even ridicule when other political beliefs, aesthetic views, or cultural opinions are not. Freedom of expression is valuable for allowing broad public debate of any topic. It is wrong to exclude from that debate certain religious beliefs, because speech on these topics is about ideas, not incitement or even advocacy of violence.  
 
Isn’t it inconsistent for European governments to criminalize private speech that is anti-Semitic, including speech that denies the Holocaust, but refuse to criminalize the private publication of the cartoons, on free speech grounds?  
 
Human Rights Watch recognizes that the tragedy of the Holocaust is the historical context in which laws banning Holocaust denial were adopted in several European countries, as well as in Israel. We also acknowledge that, by more rigorously enforcing these laws, some governments have sought to underscore the seriousness with which they view the danger posed by right-wing extremists and others who deny such events. Such laws were also motivated by a desire not to exacerbate the suffering of Holocaust survivors living in these countries. As noted above, however, prohibiting speech, such as Holocaust denial, that is offensive or distressing to some religions or minorities, while tolerating speech that is offensive or distressing to others, is a clearly discriminatory practice and raises legitimate questions about double standards.  
 
As Human Rights Watch stated in 1995, we believe that all such laws, regardless of the religions or minorities they seek to protect, disproportionately restrict the protected right to freedom of expression. We are mindful that there are different perspectives on what is permissible and prohibited speech, but we base our position on a strong commitment to freedom of expression as a core principle of human rights and our conviction that objectionable speech is best met with contrary speech, not censorship. We also believe that governments can best counter offensive speech by fulfilling their obligation to take positive measures to protect minorities and to make clear that they reject all forms of discrimination.  
 
Prohibiting denial of the Holocaust may be popular politically, but Human Rights Watch is also concerned that over the long run, such measures are not effective to counter bigotry, and may even be counterproductive. Draconian bans may turn bigots into victims, driving them underground and creating a more attractive home for those who are drawn to such groups.  
 
 ……

 
Why can’t the cartoons be banned as potentially harmful to public safety or the rights of Muslims?  
 
Freedom of expression may be limited to protect public safety and the rights of others, but such limitations must be strictly “necessary” in a democratic society. Banning provocative speech rarely meets that test. In the case of the cartoons, any threat of violence by protesters should be contained through traditional law enforcement means. In some countries where protests have turned violent, however, officials seem to have tolerated the unlawful behavior-a disregard of their responsibilities that makes it all the more inappropriate to blame the original cartoons for ensuing unrest. A society built on respect for freedom of expression and the value of robust debate should, wherever possible, meet offensive speech with more speech-denunciations, objections, explanations-rather than censorship in the name of public safety.  
 
As for the rights of Muslims, the cartoons in no sense impede Muslims’ right to freedom of religion. Religious freedom means that all people have the liberty to adopt the religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of their choosing and to worship and, as much as possible in a democratic society, live their own lives in accordance with those beliefs. However, freedom of religion does not give anyone the right to impose his or her religious beliefs on others. That Muslims find the depictions of the Prophet Mohammed objectionable does not give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views. Muslims, like all others, are free to state their religious objections and to press for more respectful treatment, but they are not entitled to censor the expression of others in the name of their own religious freedom.  
 
Why shouldn’t the government hold editors responsible for publishing such offensive material?  
 
Editors should be held responsible for what they decide to publish-but by their readers, communities, or employers, not their governments. Under the right of freedom of expression, a government cannot impose its views of what is fit to publish except in very limited cases as described above.  
 
 
Should we consider newspapers that reprinted the cartoons even more culpable of provoking outraged response than Jyllands-Posten since by then it was clear how offensive the cartoons were?  
 
Newspapers that reprinted the cartoons may have done so for many reasons-giving their readers a first-hand opportunity to judge the cartoons themselves, showing solidarity with the Danish newspaper, provoking further controversy, or even reflecting hatred toward Muslims. However, it is not clear that any newspaper intended to incite or caused unlawful acts against Muslims. Republishers of material that is protected should enjoy the same protection from state retaliation as the original publisher. That said, many have legitimately questioned the editorial judgment of those that republished the cartoons in the context of global violence and protest. Nonetheless, international human rights law still protects their decision to republish.  
 
Don’t Muslims and everyone offended by the cartoons have the right to protest them?  
 
Human rights law protects the right to peacefully protest offensive speech, just as it protects the right to utter provocative or offensive speech. Governments have a duty to make peaceful protest possible, by respecting the right of individuals to assemble, express outrage, organize boycotts, and engage in other peaceful acts. Governments also have a duty to protect the public from protests that turn violent, to take appropriate action against specific threats against the life and property of others, and to reaffirm their own duty to avoid discriminatory speech and actions.  
 
Are governments held to a higher standard for speech than private persons?  
 
Government officials have free-speech rights as well, but they also have a parallel responsibility, beyond that of an ordinary citizen, to protect the welfare, lives and rights of the people of their nation, and to combat discrimination and intolerance. As a matter of these other responsibilities, governments should be especially careful not to speak in a way that encourages violence, discrimination or hatred because that would breach their core obligations to maintain a peaceful, open, and tolerant society. “

From one end of the Arab world to the other….

Waiting in Paris airport for my connecting flight to the far western part of the Arab world I came to think of two interesting articles on climate change I read this week. One was from the productive and knowledgeable fellow blogger Batir Wardam’s blog on the environment. In one of his recent entries he mentions the idea/project of building a carbon friendly – if not totally carbon neutral - new city with room for 700.000 inhabitants close to Amman.

This is interesting for two reasons. First, because it seems that there are a lot of new housing projects being considered and some serious big scale construction work going on in Jordan – and particularly in Amman – for the time being. Second, because focus on carbon neutrality might influence all the ongoing and planned construction in a positive way in order to reduce Jordan’s dependence on imported energy and create more sustainable energy consumption and thus a better environment. I know Batir has been fighting this fight for a long time – often somewhat alone – but I guess that right now is – in light of the circumstances – the right moment to push forward.

My impression was reinforced by an article in the monthly Jordanian magazine “Venture”, which in its May issue ran a long story on renewable energy as one of the major factors in achieving the Jordanian ambition of more energy independence. The story also made a reference to the Danish experience “How Denmark Paved Way to Energy Independence”. I seriously don’t think that all the initiatives – in particular the first mentioned in the article – are suitable for this part of the world, but there is absolutely something to learn from. I very much liked the metaphor that saving on energy was like picking low hanging fruits of a tree.

One of the lessons was that decentralized power and heating generation is crucial in achieving energy efficiency. And that is where all these new constructions projects come into the picture. The point is – make sure you plan, build and integrate decentralised power plants at the same time as you build the new neighbourhoods. It’s much easier and much cheaper than doing it afterwards.

So with this hopefully climate friendly blog contribution my conscious is much better – even though I will be travelling about 9 hours in airplanes today. Had there been direct connections it would only have been around five hours….but it is hard to get from one end of the Arab world to the other….  

King Abdullah Park

A Danish landscape architect Jeppe Aagaard Andersen has been selected to design the new King Abdullah Park. The park is going to serve primarily the inhabitants of East Amman as a recreational and green space.

Jordan Times says:

“…Also yesterday, the Monarch laid the foundation stone of the multimillion-dinar King Abdullah Park, which is expected to serve one million residents of Muqablain and the surrounding areas, providing inhabitants of east Amman with breathing space.

Designed by the office of Danish landscape architect Jeppe Aagard Andersen, the project will include sports fields, IT and social services centres, in addition to pedestrian paths and restaurants.

Construction work on the 505-dunum park has already started, with the first phase of the project expected to be ready by mid-2009, and the rest scheduled for completion in 2011.

The park is part of the ambitious master plan, which focuses on upgrading infrastructure and services in areas recently added to the Greater Amman Municipality (GAM)…”

Jeppe has been working on this project for some time and I want to congratulate him and Amman for this project. I think it will be truly innovative and give people a new experience in the way of creating a public recreational area with the use of high-tech. From the plans and sketches I have seen this has the potential of becoming a landmark in Amman. But its success of course depends on its daily users and their desire to exploit the park to the maximum while keeping it nice, clean and presentable. I will look forward to take the whole family biking in the Park.

LAGIX

Reading a newspaper today brought my attention to a new Danish RnB/HipHop group “Lagix” that have just released a new single in Jordan and eleven other countries the Middle East. The group consist of two young Danish guys of Egyptian Palestinian and Lebanese Palestinian origin. They met in a refugee facility - their artist name Lagix must be an allusion to this - in Denmark at the age of 5 and 7 and have been inseparable since. The exsistence of this group was totally new to me so I had a look at the Lagix webpage on Myspace. What a cool sound….This is their single “True Luv”

According to themselves “it is music with a very emotional and personal touch. Their songs are about their everyday life – with subjects such as love and identity – and lyrics that are about building bridges, instead of burning them”. From reading on their homepage and listning to an interview with the two guys it seems that they are also from time to time political in their songwriting. They want to make a difference in combating poverty and injustice and work for better understanding. Their latest song and video is about the cartoons and about their personal dilemma of supporting both full freedom of expression and respect for Islam.

For those interested there is a variety of music snippets and documentation on their official homepage. As your can hear Lagix mix Danish soft pop with hard American rap and a very distinguished Arabic vibe in their music. They are targeting the Middle East market where their first official single just has been released.

I wonder if this in something that will find a Jordanian audience? Why not? I certainly wouldn’t mind if they paid us a visit and gave a concert in Jordan. I think I want to look into that at the Embassy.