TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/110590/1105007.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 11.4 KB | 261 lines

                ┬                                                              WORLD, Page 41

INTERVIEW

Facing a No-Win Scenario


With his popularity at an all-time high, King Hussein is
desperately seeking peace in the gulf. He says both war and
economic sanctions could destroy Jordan.

By DEAN FISCHER and JAMES WILDE AMMAN and King Hussein


    If the crisis in the gulf becomes a shooting war, Jordan
could be the first Arab country to perish. Precariously
situated between the borders of Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia,
the kingdom of 3.5 million, Jordanians fear, would be
obliterated in the cross fire. King Hussein knows that if
Israeli forces were drawn into the fighting, there would be
little to stop them from marching into Jordan and declaring the
entire country a Palestinian homeland. Such an invasion could
cause so much devastation and economic chaos that the
half-Palestinian, half-Bedouin country might disintegrate into
warring factions.

    Bad as war would be for Jordan, a continuation of the
present standoff would be only slightly less disastrous.
Already burdened with the cost of absorbing 150,000 Jordanians
who were expelled from Kuwait and Iraq, the country is facing
a fiscal crisis of calamitous proportions. According to
government figures, the United Nations-ordered embargo of Iraq,
where 70% of Jordan's exports go, could cost up to $4 billion
in lost revenues this year. Tourists, who brought in more than
$500  million last year, have virtually disappeared. The
sanctions have idled the once thriving port of Aqaba, and
shipments of fruits and vegetables are rotting at the border.
Deprived of access to foreign markets, Jordan's agricultural
and industrial sectors are beginning to atrophy. While food
bins in Amman remain full, the possibility of shortages looms
closer each day.

    The Saudis, angered by the King's criticism of the presence
of U.S. troops in the region, have halted all oil exports to
Jordan. Despite the U.N. embargo, Amman continues to get 80%
of its oil from Iraq, which is credited against Baghdad's $310
million debt to Jordan at the less than market rate of $16 per
bbl. But fuel purchases on the open market this year could
total nearly $900 million.

    International assistance to cushion these blows has been
slow in coming. The kingdom has received only $4 million of the
$50 million  pledged by international relief organizations to
help it cope with the flood of refugees. While Washington has
agreed to deliver the $50 million it pledged to Jordan before
the crisis, Amman has yet to collect any money from the U.S.,
which resents Hussein's ambiguity toward Saddam. Most
Jordanians believe that significant relief from the West will
come only if Hussein subscribes wholeheartedly to the U.S.
position.

    That is unlikely to happen. The King's popularity is at an
all-time high, primarily because he refuses to take a hard line
against Saddam, whom Jordanians respect for standing up to the
U.S. and Israel. Even Jordan's normally fractious trade unions
have put their differences aside and pledged to take cuts in
wages to support what they call Saddam's "just Arab cause." A
highly placed Jordanian official warns that the longer the U.S.
stays in the gulf, "the bigger hero Saddam Hussein will
become." He says that despite Iraq's aggression, Jordanians
feel that the preservation of an Arab community of nations is
infinitely preferable to war. "People are counting on King
Hussein to get us out in one piece," he says. "He is probably
the only one who can do it."

    Hussein, who retains absolute authority over defense and
foreign affairs despite his country's cautious development of
democratic institutions, ascribes Jordan's pro-Iraq tilt to
"the people's will." For the moment, the King has the support
of the populace, and he has vowed to "respect that trust." But
that leaves him facing a painful dilemma: he can either stick
to his present course and suffer economic collapse or denounce
Saddam and risk the wrath of his own people. In the midst of
his indefatigable efforts to find a way out, the King last week
shared his views with two TIME correspondents.


    Q. The gulf crisis is now three months old. Will there be
war, or is there still a chance for peace?

    A. I believe there is still a chance for peace, but it must
be pursued by all of us. I am certainly committed to doing so.


    Q. Do you think President Bush, King Fahd and President
Saddam are equally committed to a peaceful outcome?

    A. I can't really speak for others, but I think there are
signs coming out of Iraq at this time that suggest a readiness
to move toward a peaceful and secure region. The only problem
is that there seems to have been an embargo on dialogue and
readiness to compromise.


    Q. You don't subscribe to the notion that a military strike
by the U.S. could bring about a quick end to the problem?

    A. The U.S. possesses the most modern weapons of war in the
world. But I can't see how the Iraqis are not expecting that,
and preparing, possibly, to receive the first blow and then
strike back. I believe the losses are going to be horrendous
in terms of lives, damage to the infrastructure, oil. Also,
there will be other damage: the fact that there are foreign
troops, even in the country that is the custodian of the holy
places. There is also great agitation over the lack of progress
on the Palestinian problem and the fact that the status of
Jerusalem is still unresolved. If war occurs, the damage will
be felt throughout the Muslim and Arab world. What is the
purpose? The destruction of Iraq? What kind of a result is
that? The region would be driven toward greater extremism, and
I really can't see what benefit anyone would derive.


    Q. Saddam also has weapons of mass destruction. Is not the
crux of all this the fear that Saddam is a loose cannon with
terrible weapons that must be eliminated?

    A. This is in the minds of many in the Western world. But
weapons of mass destruction are available everywhere. If there
is a resolution of the Iraq-Kuwait problem, if the world is
moving toward a new world order, then the same principles
should apply to the Arab-Israeli problem. Then it would also
be possible and necessary to remove weapons of mass destruction
in the entire region. I think there is readiness on the Arab
side. But is there any guarantee that Israel might not use
nuclear weapons?


    Q. Must these issues be linked?

    A. I am not suggesting that they should be addressed
simultaneously, but I am suggesting that there should be
readiness to resolve all these problems.


    Q. Why won't Saddam just withdraw from Kuwait, allow the
restoration of the former government and then negotiate a
solution to his specific border disputes?

    A. And go back to square one before the invasion? There was
never a defined border; otherwise we wouldn't have had this
problem in the first place. Somehow there has to be an
understanding of where we end up. Also, as long as there is a
threat of possible military action against Iraq by a strong
hostile force, this is holding up the question of releasing
what the Iraqis call guests and the rest of the world calls
hostages. As long as there is a question of whether [others
seek] the destruction of Iraq, this is the reason why the
Iraqis are not beginning to move.


    Q. Do you think the invasion was justified?

    A. We have always stood against the occupation of
territories by war, and certainly against annexations, and this
is a principle we have applied across the board. But the
tragedy in this case is that it all could have been avoided had
some effort been made by the parties concerned, with Arab help,
to resolve the problem peacefully.


    Q. Has Saddam put his finger on one of the most important
problems in the Middle East other than Palestine, namely the
question of rich against poor?

    A. After the dust settles, everyone will reassess this
particular problem. There is a need to look at the issue of
democracy and popular participation. Otherwise the area is
vulnerable. I don't think things can return to what they were.


    Q. Young Arabs especially see Saddam as a ray of hope to
ease the pain many feel they suffer.

    A. The pain is there because of the Palestinian problem.
They also see weaknesses caused by threats and challenges from
within the Arab community. They see a lack of cohesion. This
is all causing frustration. Then they see in Saddam someone who
managed to get his country together after eight years of
terrible war and tremendous losses. They see that as an
achievement. They also see Iraq as a potential model, with 17
million people, with all its resources, calling for the use of
these resources not for themselves but for others. Many Arabs
would like to achieve a degree of respect in the world; they
no longer want to be treated as inferior. Obviously there is
a lot of anger, a lot of resentment and a determination to get
out of this situation. I'm not saying there is one individual
who could achieve all these hopes, but Iraq represents change.


    Q. Does this crisis change your country?

    A. Our hope is that everybody changes for the better. Jordan
is an example. Everything is out in the open. We hear and feel
what the people think. I'm sure the feelings are much more
intense in other Arab states. The sparks could begin to fire
at any time if people don't look at themselves and reassess.
All of us need to do that.


    Q. Does the criticism of longtime friends like Thatcher and
Bush disturb you?

    A. It causes me considerable pain, because I have never
changed. I've always acted in what I believe is the interests
of the Arab people. But we are living in a kind of world when
at times there is this attitude -- at which I rather rebel --
that you are either with us or against us. We should be
partners.


    Q. Jordan has suffered a great deal from this invasion.

    A. Jordan is being punished for holding its head high and
trying to contribute to a solution that makes sense.


    Q. Well, shouldn't Saddam Hussein contribute toward a
resolution of this problem, including financial aid to Jordan?

    A. He should, yes. Iraq has helped us in the past. I don't
know if they are able to in the present circumstances. But on
the other hand, I don't know why Jordan should be punished for
being an oasis of stability in the region for many, many years.


    Q. In the minds of many people the image of Saddam Hussein
is of a murderer and a torturer, a man who treats his own and
other people with great brutality.

    A. We are not all at the same level of development in terms
of the problems and challenges we face. Iraq and the person of
its President were subjected to a concerted effort to portray
them in this [bad] way, and over a long period of time, not
just since this crisis. Iraq has frightened some in this area
to the point that they are saying something must be done about
this new phenomenon. Only Saddam can correct this image.

    I cannot defend, I cannot justify, and it is not my place
to do so. Everyone in this world is ultimately responsible for
what he does and for what he represents. Saddam hasn't
addressed this problem adequately. He hasn't looked at the p.r.
side of it. He needs to reassess so that the true image of Iraq
-- if this is not the true image -- will emerge.