By Raja Kamal

In these final days of the U.S. presidential campaign, the candidates’ focus on foreign affairs is largely limited to the attacks that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three colleagues in Benghazi; the civil war in Syria; the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran; and the rise of China as a formidable economic muscle. Little attention is paid to other international issues, including the plight of Jordan, one of the most strategically positioned countries in the Middle East. Although it is poor in natural resources, Jordan has a strong history of moderation and stability, and has long enjoyed constructive relationships with Western democracies. However, the country faces challenges that make it vulnerable to popular unrest and political instability that may be exploited by the organized and disciplined Muslim Brotherhood, which is eager to exert its influence.
 
In one sign of potential trouble, the Brotherhood was involved recently in organizing about 10,000 people, mostly Islamists, to demonstrate in Amman demanding stronger participation in the government. Empowered by regime change in Egypt, the Brotherhood is looking for change in Jordan. Without strong support from its Western allies, events could spiral out of control. In fact, just recently Jordan broke up a plot by Al-Qaeda affiliates to launch a series of attacks on Western targets, including the U.S. Embassy in Amman.
 
One needs only to look at a map to understand Jordan’s strategic value. Virtually landlocked, it is bordered by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq. When neighboring countries sneeze, Jordan catches pneumonia. For example, over two hundred thousand have fled Syria’s civil war seeking safe haven in Jordan. Eight years ago, about a million Iraqi refugees arrived in Jordan following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. All the region’s crises have involved or affected Jordan, which now shares a peace treaty and border with Israel.
 
Equally important are the severe economic challenges Jordan faces. Simply put, it is running out of cash. The country has 6.5 million inhabitants whose average per capita income is only around $6,000, and its national debt approaches 10 percent of GDP. The annual support the country receives from the U.S. and EU countries, as well as Gulf nations, is substantial but insufficient.
 
The International Monetary Fund has offered $2 billion to boost Jordan’s anemic economy. In return the IMF would require the government to trim its budget and cut critical subsidies on electricity and fuel that have been adversely impacted by recent sabotage of Egyptian natural gas pipelines and the loss of subsidized Iraqi oil. Elimination of the energy subsidies would be devastating to the Jordanian economy and would likely empower the Muslim Brotherhood, allowing it to gain enough additional political influence eventually to destabilize the moderate regime of King Abdullah.
 
Advocates of democracy and inclusiveness must understand that investment in Jordan’s economic stability can be a useful and effective investment in moderation. Organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, along with the broader growth of Islamic fundamentalism, are fueled in large part by the poor economic performance of many Arab nations.
 
Despite the record rise in the price of oil, the economic well-being of most Arabs is worsening. Astonishingly, if oil and natural gas were excluded from the economies of Arab nations, which together have an estimated population of about 400 million, their cumulative GDP would amount to less than Finland’s with its five million people. The Arab world has failed to match the economic growth visible in most other regions.
 
The best counter to rising Islamic fundamentalism in the Arab world would be an economic success story – and Jordan could be it. The government has instituted democratic reforms, emphasized better education for its young people, and looked to expand human resources as keys to economic development. These efforts, however, will be for naught if modest aid from the West is not forthcoming. Specifically, the energy subsidies should be allowed to expire gradually over a period of years to mitigate the counterproductive shock of the sudden removal that the IMF insists upon.
 
In the short term, Jordan badly needs some additional “fish” to survive current economic challenges; in the longer term, with help and guidance, it must learn to reel in its own bounty of fish relying mostly on the well-educated citizenry.
 
The best case scenario is a more prosperous Jordan that could serve as a model for its Arab neighbors. The worst though, would be to allow fundamentalists to depose Jordan’s government. In that event, Jordan would change quickly, and for the worse: The peace treaty with Israel would likely be jeopardized; the small but important Christian community would likely find itself unwelcome; and secular Jordanians might very well emigrate in significant numbers, causing a debilitating “brain drain” from the country.
 
The U.S. has a genuine stake in Jordan’s survival as a moderate nation in a complex and troubled part of the world. Clearly the country needs economic support to avert events reaching a critical mass, and the U.S. should urgently spearhead efforts to that end. The opportunity costs of declining to provide such aid would surely have dangerous ramifications for the region, and for the security interests of the U.S. and Israel. A few extra fish in the net now will lead to more bountiful harvest in the future.
 
Raja Kamal senior vice president at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging Research in Novato, California (www.thebuck.org). He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star.