… a friend indeed

When Japan’s Foreign Minister Taro Kono came to Amman earlier this month, he could hardly have imagined the controversy that would surround his goodwill visit, which was intended to emphasise Japan’s strong support for Jordan and the continuation of its considerable economic aid to this country.

In keeping with the requirements of diplomacy and good hospitality, the Jordanian foreign minister reciprocated Japan’s goodwill by referring in the joint statement to the growing crisis caused by North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile tests, and stressed the need for North Korea to stop these tests in keeping with Security Council resolutions.

Immediately, news blogs and social networks were filled with messages mocking Jordan’s stand regarding the Korean crisis and expressing admiration for North Korea’s leader.

It is worth reflecting on why this happened.

First, Jordan is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Second, Jordan has always called for respecting UN Security Council resolutions in resolving international disputes.

So what was so bizarre about making a statement compatible with standard national policy?

From a different perspective, the first rule of good hospitality, of which Jordanians are very proud, is to be sensitive to issues that concern your guest. 

The Japanese were here to show goodwill and help us cope with the challenges that face us. What kind of hosts would we be, and how could we hope to maintain Japan’s goodwill, if we proved insensitive to their anxiety about ballistic missiles that fly over their cities and about the prospect of nuclear confrontation in their region?

Furthermore, why do Jordanians consider Kim Jong-un an inspiring role model? 

What has he done for Jordan? How many Jordanians use North Korean products, go to Pyongyang for medical treatment, or send their children to study there?

Conversely, Jordan has very good relations with South Korea, where our friends are just as worried by Kim Jong-un’s behaviour as our Japanese friends.

To be sure, people in a democratic country have the right to disagree with their governments’ policies, and to express their disagreement. But such criticism should focus on policies, not on personalities.

Jeering and sneering at a person is unhelpful under any circumstances. At best, it should be left for comedians. It is not a substitute for political dialogue.

Additionally, when someone wishes to criticise a government policy, that person should have the courtesy to propose an alternative. 

But armchair politicians everywhere build their popularity by criticising everything without ever proposing an alternative, largely because they cannot think of a realistic one to propose.

This is the trouble with populism. It a tool used for political expediency used by those who do not care about consequences, do not think even one step ahead and do not intend to honour their commitments.

Populism creates excessive expectations or prioritises objectives that are clearly not priorities or that are simply impossible to achieve.

This is why we should beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.