Ex-crown Prince Hassan's Interest In Iraq

[Asma2]

Ex-Crown Prince Hassan's interest in Iraq. Can this family get their finger on Iraq oil?

Jordan Prince Said To Seek Iraqi Throne
Meets With Wolfowitz
By MARC PERELMAN
FORWARD STAFF
PARIS — Former crown prince Hassan of Jordan is not on the guest list of a high-level meeting between the main Iraqi opposition groups and American officials scheduled for Friday in Washington. Nevertheless, he is bound to loom large as participants grapple with the all-important question of who runs post-Saddam Baghdad. Rumors are rife that the 55-year-old Hassan is angling to become king of Iraq.

Hassan, whose Hashemite family ruled Iraq until his great-uncle Feisal II was overthrown in 1958, caused a stir last month when he unexpectedly appeared at a meeting of Saddam Hussein foes in London. Hassan himself was crown prince of Jordan for 34 years, but was pushed aside when his brother King Hussein named a son, Abdullah, to succeed him.

Although he claimed he had come to London merely to express solidarity, Hassan's name has been bandied around for a series of United Nations postings since he was pushed aside from the Jordanian throne, fueling speculation that he was looking for a "job," if not a crown.

Several observers said some Bush administration officials are indeed rooting for Hassan at a time when Washington is struggling to find a consensus leader to succeed Saddam. After the London meeting, the London-based Guardian newspaper reported that Hassan had the backing of Pentagon hawks and that he met in April in Washington with one of their most prominent figures, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

"There is more to his presence in London than meets the eye," an American expert on Iraq said. "Some people might be thinking that a Hashemite ruler might be a good compromise between the Shi'ite and the Sunni" Muslim factions because the Hashemite family is believed to be descended from both prophet Muhammad and his son-in-law Ali, the latter a seminal figure in the Shi'ite faith.

A well-placed intelligence source told the Forward that "some Defense Department people are pushing for it, but it is totally unrealistic."

A Pentagon spokesman, Lieu-tenant Colonel David Lapan, said the department did not want to comment on the speculation surrounding Hassan, adding that he was not invited to Washington for this week's consultations on the future of Iraq.

Other observers dismissed the Hashemite scenario and said Hassan's intention was to embarrass Abdullah by lending Jordanian support to the American regime-change policy in Iraq. They noted that Hassan's move came just as American press reports said Jordanian bases might be used in an American military operation against Iraq, prompting strong denials from Amman.

After the London meeting, Abdullah blasted his uncle, claiming "he had blundered into something he did not realize he was getting into and we're all picking up the pieces," according to the official Jordanian Petra press agency.
"I believe the king does not want this," the intelligence source said. "He is already preoccupied enough with his own survival."

But others disagreed, arguing that Abdullah's denial of the reports of Jordan's cooperation in military preparations and his criticism of Hassan's presence in London could well be a way for him to stave off the inevitable criticism he would face at home. There, public opinion is already enraged by America's unwavering support of Israel since the outbreak of the intifada. The majority of Jordanian citizens are of Palestinian descent.

Some point to the close relationship between Hassan and Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi as an explanation for his presence in London. After Chalabi was indicted in Jordan for a bank fraud in the 1980s, Hassan helped him get out of jail. Chalabi invited Hassan to London, several sources said.

But Hassan's presence did not go down well with some key Iraqi opposition leaders.

"Jordan said it was a mistake and we have to stick to this explanation," said Hamid al-Bayati, the London representative of the Iran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the main Shi'ite opposition group. "Iraq has enough candidates to succeed Hussein. We don't need a foreigner and our new constitution will ensure it."

Al-Bayati will attend the August 9 meeting in Washington with Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Also invited are the two main Kurdish groups, the Iraqi National Accord and the constitutional monarchy movement.

Although they said they want to offer a united stance to the administration, disagreements among the opposition groups are obvious. The Iraqi National Congress, created in 1992 as the main umbrella group and funded by Washington for a decade, has not been able to knit them together.

 

[Asma2]

Prince Hassan of Jordan ready to help in rebuilding Iraq
Jordan-Iraq, Politics, 4/7/2003

Former Jordanian crown prince Hassan Bin Talal announced he is ready to play the role of the coordinator in the framework of political rebuilding of Iraq.

In a statement to the German daily De Fillet, the Jordanian prince expressed his rejection to appoint an American administration for Iraq even if this administration is provisional, considering that by a military government, people can be subjugated but can not be tamed, stressing that treating the Iraqis as citizens of second rate will be a grave mistake.

He indicated that he is from the region and he can directly with all sides do more than the majority of other foreign sides can do.

Prince Hassan said that the reasons behind the American intervention in Baghdad can be explained partially as a result of the shock of the sep 11, 2001 incidents in addition to economic considerations.

 

[Alexandria]

An interesting letter Sean, by King Hussein to his brother.

What is the state of the relationship with the other brother mentioned in Hussein's letter? Did he side with his brother or support his nephew, the present King?

And while I know this thread is about King Hussein's brother, I just have to comment on the part of the letter in which King Hussein writes about Hamzah and Noor. Hamzah seems like a very dutiful son and I can see how reports of him being his father's favourite have not been exaggerated. And I was also struck about the eloquence of King Hussein's words about his wife and how much he loved and thought of her. Whatever the allegations/accusations about Queen Noor were at the time, some of which I vaguely remember, King Hussein obviously believed none of them and held his wife in the highest regard.

 

[bluetortuga]

If Prince Hassan goes to Iraq with the intention of ruling, he'll be chewed up and spat straight out of the country. Sharif Ali bin Hussein is the rightful heir to the Iraqi throne. And it's up to the Iraqis to decide whether they want a king or not. Right now, I don't think they'll tolerate a foreigner ruling them for the long-term. And they wish to move along the path of democracy and let the people choose the next ruler of Iraq.

But let's imagine if P. Hassan actually became King of Iraq. He would become a huge threat to K. Abdullah. Jordan would have to find another chief trading partner, another source of oil etc. Hassan would have all the oil and a huge army to be a credible threat to K. Abdullah's throne. P. Rashid would become heir to a throne in control of some of the largest oil reserves in the world. If Hassan became king of Iraq, it would be like sweet revenge. The Hashemites of Jordan would be like "poor relations". P. Hassan and P. Sarvath would make K. Abdullah and Q. Rania look like beggars.

 

[Sean.~]

Originally posted by bluetortuga@Jan 9th, 2004 - 8:27 pm
If Prince Hassan goes to Iraq with the intention of ruling, he'll be chewed up and spat straight out of the country. Sharif Ali bin Hussein is the rightful heir to the Iraqi throne. And it's up to the Iraqis to decide whether they want a king or not. Right now, I don't think they'll tolerate a foreigner ruling them for the long-term. And they wish to move along the path of democracy and let the people choose the next ruler of Iraq.

But let's imagine if P. Hassan actually became King of Iraq. He would become a huge threat to K. Abdullah. Jordan would have to find another chief trading partner, another source of oil etc. Hassan would have all the oil and a huge army to be a credible threat to K. Abdullah's throne. P. Rashid would become heir to a throne in control of some of the largest oil reserves in the world. If Hassan became king of Iraq, it would be like sweet revenge. The Hashemites of Jordan would be like "poor relations". P. Hassan and P. Sarvath would make K. Abdullah and Q. Rania look like beggars.

Sharif Ali is most certainly NOT the rightful heir to any throne. He is an upstart. The rightful claimant is Prince Ra'ad. After him comes his son Ziad. Sharif Ali is the son of the sister of Iraq's last Queen Consort. Not only did the Iraqi throne not pass through the female line (as per the constitution of 1952), but it certainly did not pass through the family of a Queen consort!!! Ali's father was descended from the Sharifs of Mecca, but he was from a junior line. Even if Ali did have any kind of valid claim (which he does not), he has two older brothers that would come after him.

After the assasination of Faisal, the headship of the house went to his father's uncle, Prince Ziad (as per the House Law), the youngest son of King Hussein of the Hejaz.

Sean.~

 

[Humera]

A very interesting letter. I read the entire thing this time.
The last few months of King Hussein's life certainly must've been fully of worry and tension.

I found this part interesting:

I returned home deciding to abdicate the throne in your favour despite the differences between us at times. My small family was offended by slandering and falsehoods, and I refer here to my wife and children.

I wonder if Hassan regrets his behaviour now. Had he been savvy and sensitive enough, he'd have kept his family's as well as his own behaviour in check. Who knows, King Hussein might've abdicated.

 

[Banadoora]

I heard about Prince Hassan's interest in Iraq last April. This isn't much of a surprise. The American's won't want him there.

 

[bluetortuga]

Sharif Ali is most certainly NOT the rightful heir to any throne. He is an upstart. The rightful claimant is Prince Ra'ad. After him comes his son Ziad. Sharif Ali is the son of the sister of Iraq's last Queen Consort. Not only did the Iraqi throne not pass through the female line (as per the constitution of 1952), but it certainly did not pass through the family of a Queen consort!!! Ali's father was descended from the Sharifs of Mecca, but he was from a junior line. Even if Ali did have any kind of valid claim (which he does not), he has two older brothers that would come after him.

After the assasination of Faisal, the headship of the house went to his father's uncle, Prince Ziad (as per the House Law), the youngest son of King Hussein of the Hejaz.

Hi Sean, is Prince Ra'ad doing anything to challenge P. Hassan's or Sharif Ali's ambitions? Is K. Abdullah supporting P. Ra'ad claims to the Iraqi throne? If P. Ra'ad doesn't speak up so that he can be heard, either Hassan or Sharif Ali will wind up as king, if the Iraqi people choose having a monarchy again.

 

[alia_musallam]

From what i ahve read and heard in Jordan, Prince Hassan's main aim in iraq is to help them start afresh and not to barge in trying to become King of Iraq. As one of the articles said anyway, if KA had it his way he wouldn't let him. He does not want Prince Hassan to be seen or heard by the Jordanian public for fear that people express their support for him. It is a very sad situation in a family. And amongst my family in Jordan apparently it was well known that Queen Noor and Prince Hassan did not get on, she did not want to share the late king with him and wanted him to have nothing to do with his brother.

 

[pegassuss2525]

This article was published in the Daily Star on January 12th.
Is it Prince Hassan’s moment?

Can a Jordanian prince help Iraq along the path to democracy? Many American, British and Iraqi experts doubt it. They say the Iraqis, having come such a long and bloody way since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, won’t want even temporary links with the Hashemite monarchy that was toppled in 1958.
But the issue is likely to surface in the coming weeks, no matter what the experts think. Jordan’s Prince Hassan, the brother of the late King Hussein, says he hopes to go to Baghdad soon to attend a conference aimed at easing tensions between Iraq’s feuding Shiite and Sunni Muslim communities. As a Hashemite who traces his lineage to the Prophet Mohammed, Hassan thinks he can play a unifying role.
Hassan disclosed his plans in an interview with me in London, noting that he expects to visit Iraq by the end of February. He described the trip as a follow-up to a religious conference he hosted in Amman last May, which he said was attended by representatives of prominent Sunni and Shiite leaders, including people close to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani.
The prince said he has discussed his visit with members of some of Iraq’s big tribes, including the Shamar, the Saadoun and the Rabia. “I found that in these meetings, I was able to be recognized as someone with a proven track record and not a newcomer to the scene. I felt I had the facility to involve Shiites and Sunnis” and other Iraqi religious groups.
Although Hassan said he wasn’t seeking to play any specific role in Iraq’s political future, he was clearly signaling a willingness to be drafted. “Almost every tribal denomination in Iraq has been involved in trying to seek the light at the end of the tunnel,” he said. “My view is that we need to move from government by power to government by participation. In that sense, cultural participation is basically what I have to offer to Iraqis.”
Later in the interview, Hassan suggested that perhaps he could play a transitional role over the next three years, while Iraq is writing a permanent constitution. The options he cited included acting as provisional head of state, provisional regent or member of a transitional council. He said he had no desire to be king of Iraq, and he noted that “using the ‘K’ word is unsettling” to Iraqis.
Hassan, 56, is a poignant figure. He was for decades crown prince of Jordan, but he lost his chance at the throne when King Hussein decided just before his death in 1999 to designate his son Abdullah as heir. Intelligent and urbane, Hassan has sought to play useful public roles in the years since. His Iraq interest first surfaced at a July 2002 conference of the Iraqi opposition in London, but he later appeared to back away.
Any serious push by Hassan in Iraqi politics would probably be opposed by the United States, Britain and most important, Jordan itself. King Abdullah is said to have reluctantly approved Hassan’s plan to visit Iraq for the meeting of religious leaders. But Abdullah ­ who has heard through his own channels that some Iraqi tribal and religious leaders are nostalgic for the days of King Faisal II, the Hashemite king who was toppled in 1958 ­ would prefer to manage any future discussion of the Hashemite role himself.
The British government, which put the Hashemites in power in Jordan and Iraq back in the 1920s, appears skeptical about Hassan’s plans. One British official said Hassan was asking the right question ­ in stressing the importance of unifying Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis ­ but that he would not be a popular mediator.
“If we could have a figurehead acceptable to all parties, that would be ideal,” the British official said. But he cautioned: “We see no serious interest among the Iraqi tribes in having a constitutional monarchy.”
US experts are similarly dubious. They note that Iraqi opinion polls show a very low level of support for restored monarchy. “It is fantasy for Hassan and his friends to think he could become a transitional regent in Iraq,” says Judith Yaphe, an Iraq expert at the National Defense University in Washington. “He would be seen as a foreigner imposed from outside.”
Hassan may be the wrong man, but this is the right issue. The US occupation authorities need to find some umbrella under which Iraq’s fragmented religious and ethnic groups can gather for long enough to write the new political rules that will govern their country. Either they find that unity, or Iraq’s drift toward de facto partition and the risk of civil war will continue.
David Ignatius, a Paris-based syndicated columnist, is published regularly in THE DAILY STAR

 

[pegassuss2525]

I had noticed that it was by the same author and the story was similar but not exact.

 

[alia_musallam]

I found this on the net and if you read the last bit there's only one person who comes to mind (!):

King and Country The Hashemite solution for Iraq.
BY BERNARD LEWIS AND R. JAMES WOOLSEY
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Following the recent passage of the Security Council resolution on Iraq, the key issue continues to be how quickly to move toward sovereignty and democracy for a new government. The resolution's call for the Iraqi Governing Council to establish a timetable by Dec. 15 for creating a constitution and a democratic government has papered over differences for the time being.

But there are still substantial disagreements even among people who want to see democracy and the rule of law in Iraq as promptly as possible. The U.S. sees the need for time to do the job right. France, Germany and Russia want both more U.N. participation and more speed--a pair of mutually exclusive objectives if there ever was one. Some Iraqis call for an elected constitutional convention, others for a rapid conferring of sovereignty, some for both. Many Middle Eastern governments oppose democracy and thus some support whatever they think will fail.

There may be a path through this thickening fog, made thicker by the rocket and suicide-bombing attacks of the last three days. It is important to help Ambassador Paul Bremer and the coalition forces to establish security. But it is also important to take an early step toward Iraqi sovereignty and to move toward representative government. The key is that Iraq already has a constitution. It was legally adopted in 1925 and Iraq was governed under it until the series of military, then Baathist, coups began in 1958 and brought over four decades of steadily worsening dictatorship. Iraqis never chose to abandon their 1925 constitution--it was taken from them. The document is not ideal, and it is doubtless not the constitution under which a modern democratic Iraq will ultimately be governed. But a quick review indicates that it has some very useful features that would permit it to be used on an interim basis while a new constitution is drafted. Indeed, the latter could be approved as an omnibus amendment to the 1925 document.
This seems possible because the 1925 Iraqi constitution--which establishes that the nation's sovereignty "resides in the people"--provides for an elected lower house of parliament, which has a major role in approving constitutional amendments. It also contains a section on "The Rights of the People" that declares Islam as the official religion, but also provides for freedom of worship for all Islamic sects and indeed for all religions and for "complete freedom of conscience." It further guarantees "freedom of expression of opinion, liberty of publication, of meeting together, and of forming and joining associations." In different words, the essence of much of our own Bill of Rights is reflected therein.

We need not shy away from the 1925 constitution because it establishes a constitutional monarchy. Understandings could readily be worked out that would not lead to a diminution of Amb. Bremer's substantive authority in vital areas during the transition--some ministries may, e.g., transition to Iraqi control before others. In the document as it now stands the monarch has some important powers since he appoints the government's ministers, including a prime minister, and the members of the upper house, or senate. Many of these and other provisions would doubtless be changed through amendment, although the members of the current Governing Council might be reasonably appointed to some of these positions on an interim basis. Some new features, such as explicit recognition of equal rights for women, a point not clear in the 1925 document, would need to be adopted at the outset. During a transition, pursuant to consultations with Amb. Bremer and with groups in Iraq, the king could under the constitution appoint ministers, including a prime minister, and also adopt provisional rules for elections. The elected parliament could then take a leading role in amending the constitution and establishing the rules for holding further elections.

Using the 1925 constitution as a transitional document would be entirely consistent with permanently establishing as head of state either a president or a monarch that, like the U.K.'s, reigns but does not rule.

It is worth noting that monarchy and democracy coexist happily in a number of countries. Indeed, of the nations that have been democracies for a very long time and show every sign that they will remain so, a substantial majority are constitutional monarchies (the U.S. and Switzerland being the principal exceptions). And we should recall how important King Juan Carlos was to the transition from fascism to democracy in Spain. As odd as the notion may seem to Americans whose national identity was forged in rebellion against George III, there is nothing fundamentally undemocratic about a limited monarchy's serving as a transitional, or even a long-term, constitutional structure in Iraq or any other country.

Selecting the right monarch for the transitional government would be vitally important. Conveniently, the 1925 constitution provides that the people of Iraq are deemed to have "confided . . . a trust" to "King Faisal, son of Hussain, and to his heirs . . . ." If the allies who liberated Iraq recognized an heir of this Hashemite line as its constitutional monarch, and this monarch agreed to help bring about a modern democracy under the rule of law, such a structure could well be the framework for a much smoother transition to democracy than now seems at hand. The Sunni Hashemites, being able to claim direct descent from the Prophet Mohammed, have historically been respected by the Shiites, who constitute a majority of the people of Iraq, although the latter recognize a different branch of the family. It is the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, not the Hashemites, who have been the Shiites' persecutors.

The respect enjoyed by the Hashemites has been earned. They have had a generally deserved reputation for tolerance and coexistence with other faiths and other branches of Islam. Many Iraqis look back on the era of Hashemite rule from the 1920s to the 1950s as a golden age. And during the period of over 1,000 years when the Hashemites ruled the Hejaz, wherein the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina are located, they dealt tolerantly with all Muslims during the Haj, or annual pilgrimage. Disagreements and tension under Hashemite rule have never come close either to the bloody conflicts of many centuries' duration in Europe between Catholics and Protestants or to the massacres and hatred perpetrated by the Wahhabis and their allies in the House of Saud.

Recently in a brilliant essay in the New Republic, Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen has pointed out that tolerance and "the exercise of public reason" have given democracy solid roots in many of the world's non-European cultures, and that balloting must be accompanied by such local traditions in order for democracy and the rule of law to take root. The legitimacy and continuity which the Hashemites represent for large numbers of people in the Middle East, and the tolerance of "public reason" with which they have been associated, could provide a useful underpinning for the growth of democracy in Iraq.

Historically, rulers in the Middle East have held office for life and have nominated their successors, ordinarily from within the reigning family. This ensured legitimacy, stability and continuity, and usually though not invariably took the form of monarchy. In the modern era succession by violence has sadly become more prevalent. It would be reasonable to use the traditional Middle Eastern concepts of legitimacy and succession and to build on the wide and historic appreciation for the rule of law and of limited government to help bring about a transition to democracy. The identification of legitimacy with the Western practice of balloting has now occurred in many cultures around the world, but it may well occur sooner in Iraq if it is developed at least initially as an expanding aspect of an already legitimate constitutional order.

Some contend that a process that gave the U.N. a central role would somehow confer legitimacy. We are at a loss to understand this argument. Nearly 40% of the U.N. members' governments do not practice succession by election. In the Middle East only Israel and Turkey do so. Why waste time with U.N. member governments, many of them nondemocratic, working out their differences--and some indeed fundamentally oppose democracy in Iraq--when the key parties who need to do that are the Iraqis? Besides, real legitimacy ultimately will come about when Iraq has a government that "deriv[es] its just power from the consent of the governed." During a transition in which Iraq is moving toward democracy, a government that is operating under its existing constitution, with a monarch as called for in that document, is at least as legitimate as the governments of U.N. members that are not democracies at all.
Much would hinge on the willingness of the king to work closely and cooperatively with Amb. Bremer and to appoint a responsible and able prime minister. The king should be a Hashemite prince with political experience and no political obligations or commitments. In view of the nation's Shiite majority, the prime minister should be a modern Shiite with a record of opposition to tyranny and oppression. Such leaders would be well-suited to begin the process that would in time lead to genuinely free and fair elections, sound amendments to the 1925 Iraqi Constitution, and the election of a truly representative governing body. We would also strongly suggest that the choices of king and prime minister be made on the basis of character, ability and political experience--not on the basis of bias, self-interest, grudges or rivalries held or felt by some in the region and indeed by some in the U.S. government.

Mr. Lewis is a professor emeritus at Princeton and the author, most recently, of "The Crisis of Islam" (Modern Library, 2003). Mr. Woolsey is a former director of the CIA. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110004230

 

[alia_musallam]

Hmmm, well I can think of worse leaders who have been democratically elected... and when they say King i believe they mean 'figurehead king' rather than 'hands on king', someone who can bring togther the many different religious factions in Iraq not someone who would wield total power, a symbol. And after Saddam anyone would be a breeze and the Iraqis certainly aren't going to be poor...

I still don't see why it would be entertaining but then again maybe you enjoy looking at pictures of the aftermath of bombings aimed at Iraqi policeman and civilians. I cannot believe these people doing it are Iraqi as they are destroyng their own country's future, they must not care about the rest of their nation. Maybe you don't like the Americans being there, but attacking them is not going to make Iraq a better place for the Iraqi people.

 

[synthia]

I was referring to the intrigues that exist in Hashemites family. There is no secret that Hassan and Abdullah don’t get along. I fact Abdullah treat Hassan like a rat. Hassan has no official duty, his activities are forbidden to be publish in Jordan… . That is what Hassan got after three decade of loyalty to Abdullah father. If Hassan would become a king of Iraq (it wound not happened) it would be time for payback. Jordan export to Iraq is 20%. Jordan depends on preferable oil prices from Iraq. And there is more.

It was just a joke. Take it easy.


Do you referring this to me?

maybe you enjoy looking at pictures of the aftermath of bombings aimed at Iraqi policeman and civilians. I cannot believe these people doing it are Iraqi as they are destroyng their own country's future, they must not care about the rest of their nation. Maybe you don't like the Americans being there, but attacking them is not going to make Iraq a better place for the Iraqi people.

 

[alia_musallam]

Sorry was just being in adefensive mood because as you might see from other posts am a fervent PHassan supporter!

And I was wondering, having done a bit of research, why does PRaad bin Zeid have more of a claim than PHassan. As far as I can tell PHassan is far more closely related to the KIngs of Iraq than PRaad... King Feisal the last King of Iraq was PHassan's direct relative through King Hussein of the Hijaz (both his greatgrandsons through his first wife, plus lots of intermarriages throughout the lines)... whereas PRaad is is the grandson through his third wife, with no other blood connections...

 

[Sean.~]

Originally posted by alia_musallam@Jan 25th, 2004 - 5:52 am
Sorry was just being in adefensive mood because as you might see from other posts am a fervent PHassan supporter!

And I was wondering, having done a bit of research, why does PRaad bin Zeid have more of a claim than PHassan. As far as I can tell PHassan is far more closely related to the KIngs of Iraq than PRaad... King Feisal the last King of Iraq was PHassan's direct relative through King Hussein of the Hijaz (both his greatgrandsons through his first wife, plus lots of intermarriages throughout the lines)... whereas PRaad is is the grandson through his third wife, with no other blood connections...

It was the way the Iraqi Constitution was written. Abdullah I's line was excluded because they had the Jordanian throne.

Sean

 

[Sean.~]

Originally posted by alia_musallam@Jan 25th, 2004 - 11:46 am
Aaaah, i see now! But teeheehee, does it account for ex-Crown Princes unceremoniously un-crown-princed?!

No.

 

[Bubbette]

I just found some new and old comments (from right before he was de-Crown Princed) which might explain why it happened:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page...ea=ia&ID=IA1299 The Wall Street Journal Europe:
". . .But Hassan is also known to suspect Arafat personally and the PLO more broadly--skepticism born of the bitter experiences of Black September 1970 when he and his family were targets of Arafat's murderous organization. American concerns that Hassan cannot come to terms with Jordan's Palestinians blur the distinction in Hassan's attitudes toward the PLO and his attitude towards Palestinians, suggesting a tendency to see all Palestinian politics uncritically through the PLO's narrow lens. . . . "

http://middleeastinfo.org/modules.php?op=m...wthread&tid=987 :
Hassan, the younger brother of Jordan's deceased monarch King Hussein, also said that "the Palestinians continue to talk about Palestinian unity. The Palestinian question has never been resolved. From my perspective, Jordan should include all the Palestinians, and Israel, Palestine and Jordan should enjoy the same sort of interdependence as there is in the Benelux countries."

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscont...php3?artid=9038 :
“I am jealous of the statement that Israel is the only democracy in the region,” he said. “Our shortcomings — our mismanagement and corruption — are our doing. Political emancipation is a precious right we must preserve for Jews and Arabs. The strengthening of the Jewish spirit, Jewish talent, Jewish power, Jewish genius is an inspiring force all over the world.”

 

[synthia]

Did he admit corruption in Jordan or am I misunderstanding him?

 

[Bubbette]

I think that is what he is saying. I don't think he means just theft of money; I think he is referring to the failure to provide moral leadership, such as ending abuses of human rights, and the failure of the Arabs themselves to topple dictators in their midst (such as Hussein, Assad).

 

[Dennism]

April 7, 2004 by the Globe and Mail / Canada


The Third World War is Now

From Palestine to Iraq, the Region is Aflame with Conflict yet the Need for Dialogue is Ignored
by Prince El Hassan bin Talal


A friend of mine recently visited a family in a small Palestinian village on the border between Israel and the West Bank. It was, he said, like walking into a real-life version of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. The table was laid, the dinner was ready -- but no one was there to eat it.

He continued through the house, eventually finding the family on the roof, huddled together, crying as they watched a bulldozer tear up their orchard. The parents and their children were watching their land and their livelihood disappear behind Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's new eight-meter-high security fence, which has been erected throughout the country.

The driver of the bulldozer, an Israeli, said to them afterward, "For every tree I pulled out of the ground, it was like killing a person. It tore at my heart, but I am under orders."

The tragedy is that while they might be on opposite sides of the conflict, these are ordinary, moderate human beings whose lives are being ruined by governments, terrorism and the cruel, unilateral nature of international politics.

It is not only in this deeply troubled country that such problems occur. Across the Middle East, for every orchard that is ripped apart, there is an olive branch torn down.

The Iraqis have watched their constitution being changed to allow foreign companies to own 100 per cent of Iraqi assets, except natural resources; the Lebanese live under constant threat of an Israeli air strike; and two weeks ago, the world witnessed Sheik Ahmed Yassin being assassinated.

Sheik Yassin was the founder of the terrorist group Hamas. I abhor suicide bombings; they are an affront to humanity. It must be remembered, however, that to his many supporters in the Islamic world he was an important spiritual leader.

Terrorism, violence, the proliferation of weapons, human-rights abuses and preventable or avoidable conflicts -- all these issues are debated day and night on Arab television. Across the region, millions perceive a denial of the inherent dignity that we all share -- equally -- as creatures of God, living under one sun, on a fragile earth upon which we all depend.

So perhaps it is no surprise that the mood is becoming ugly. In Jordan, where I live, and in countries throughout the Middle East, I witness the growing tensions and resentment every day.

Israel and Hezbollah are bombing in Southern Lebanon; in Syria there are conflicts between Kurds and Arabs; in the Gulf there are tensions between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Iran, still anchored on the axis of evil, gains strength, day by day, with Shia and other sympathizers around the world. The makings of a third world war are taking place in front of our eyes.

There are more than 40 so-called low-intensity conflicts in the world today. Maybe it is not the Third World War if you are living in Manchester or Stockholm, but if I were in Madrid when the bombs at the station went off, it would look very much like the Third World War to me.

What must it take to move away from the madness that is sweeping the region? The extremists are engaging more and more moderate citizens, who are becoming increasingly disillusioned and desperate. The blame for this cannot simply be laid at the West's door. We must also look closer to home.

The governments of the Middle East are losing touch with reality. While they fight to hold on to their position, the power vacuum is being filled by extremist movements. It is they who provide compensation for children who are killed in conflict, who provide soup kitchens to feed the starving and, in so doing, enlist an increasing number of supporters for their wars.

Make no mistake that this is a world war, albeit not like any we have seen before. The conflict is not being fought by regimented armies of men, but by individuals and by small terrorist cells on our streets and in our homes. The human race has now reached such a point that we are arguing the merits of killing a half-blind man in a wheelchair on one side, and the blowing up of 200 innocent Spanish citizens on their way to work on the other.

Significantly, neither action has brought us any closer to ending the conflict. Sheik Yassin's assassination has only served to elevate him to martyrdom, and will undoubtedly incite further violence in his name. We must remember the real danger of such an act, which could change the agenda from Palestinian-Israeli confrontation to that between Arabs, Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Sheik Yassin's killing, like every other killing, whether it is justified by states or by individual groups, takes us several steps away from what must be the overall objective: comprehensive peace in the region.

All initiatives in the Middle East, through NATO, the G8, the Developing 8 Muslim Countries (the D8), focus on what appears to be the business of the moment: security, security, security. I'd like to see them focus on dialogue, dialogue, dialogue.

What we really need is a Treaty of Versailles for our region, where everyone can sit down together and work towards peace. Experience has taught me that it is better for all parties to be at the table for peace talks, so that no one is left off the menu.

In this, the Middle East is at fault. Each nationality sits behind closed doors. I have sat with them, and all agree with the need for a multilateral security system. But when they come into the broad light of day, they are only worried for their own bilateral agreements with the United States. That attitude must change.

And the West, too, must adopt a different approach. Its member states need to move from the narrow day-to-day perspective of politics as usual and policies that deal with hard security -- the use of the military to control borders and regimes, and too great an emphasis on economics and profit.

My greatest fear is that if we continue to depend on the rule of force and on power as a deterrent, eventually we will be unable to disable violence.

We must become more sensitized to the concept of consequences: the consequences of poverty, illiteracy, oppression, lack of opportunity, despair and anger -- all of which can all lead to the contemplation of violence.

We are standing on the brink and that is something that binds us all together: the Israeli who thinks he will be killed by a suicide bomber, the Libyan by an air strike or the Westerner by a random terrorist attack.

So rather than fight a war on terror, why not wage a struggle for the rule of peace? The Arabic word hamas means zeal, but flip it on its head, to samah, and it stands for tolerance. Sometimes you just have to look at things in a different way.


Prince El Hassan bin Talal, brother of the late King Hussein of Jordan, is the moderator of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, president of the Club of Rome, and president of the Arab Thought Forum

 

[papillon]

Shelley, is this one of the articles you were looking for?! I'd never read it before. . .it dispels some of the persistent rumors that P. Hassan was angling to rule Iraq, and gives us P. Hassan admirers (er, okay, lovers) something to look forward to (i.e., the day his explanation of the events of early 1999 will be heard). I already knew he was extremely intelligent, but it's nice to see someone else acknowledge that publicly.

I also find it interesting that he says he is not wedded to the idea of an authoritarian monarchy, because that is in step with these times. KA has recently said he isn't wedded to it either, but his actions speak louder than words. He seems to be clinging to it, still clamping down heavily on basic freedoms within Jordan, not truly making reforms that would lead to less power for him, but more power and basic freedom for the people. I think P. Hassan would've made a much better king of Jordan than the current job holder.

From The Guardian

[font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Man Who Could Be King
[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]He should have been crowned King of Jordan but his brother had a deathbed change of heart. Now Prince Hassan says he would happily mediate between Saddam Hussein and the world. Michael Freedland visited him at home.

[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Michael Freedland
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Tuesday March 18, 2003
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]
[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Could the man once destined to be king of Jordan end up as king of Iraq? Not if he has his way, although the idea is being touted around the Middle East. But the former Crown Prince Hassan would not reject another notion being mooted - that he should go to Baghdad as a mediator. And when he is done with that, he might be open to the idea of taking over in New York as the next secretary general of the United Nations. But the Iraqi throne? "I've lost my red carpet fever," he says, as we sit in his Amman home. His last dose of that "fever" was four years ago when his brother, King Hussein, came home to die in his capital, but only after delivering The Letter - the one sacking Hassan as crown prince, the heir to the throne. [/font] [font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]We talk about the "scars" left by that day - in his first British interview on the subject - and about the job he says he does not want. "I am not wedded to the concept of either authoritarian monarchy or totalitarian republic," he says. "To be true to myself, I am wedded to the concept of recognising 'we the people of this part of the world'. I have no positional aspirations. I think it is for the people of Iraq to decide." [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]He doesn't think they would decide on him. Nor - and he is certain about this - would they welcome a Bush solution, in which America would impose a General MacArthur-type government with Iraqi "advisers". [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]If the idea of a monarchy in Iraq were to come up - for the first time since Hassan's then 19-year-old cousin King Faisal was assassinated in 1958 - there are numerous relatives in front of him in the queue. But - and this could be regarded as a big but - his brother Hussein did at one time share the throne of a United Arab Kingdom of Jordan and Iraq. And that might, of course, be justification for him to jump that queue. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]There is another reason: Hassan is regarded as perhaps the world's most intelligent royal. He regularly flits from country to country, busy in his role as head of half a dozen non-governmental organisations. But it wasn't always like that. Hussein appointed Hassan crown prince in 1966 - over his own eldest son, Abdullah, when Hassan was 19. The king saw in the prince a brilliant mind who would benefit his kingdom and, because of that, changed the law of succession in his brother's favour. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]That was how it stayed for 33 years. Hassan was more than just an heir. He was the junior member of a partnership. All over Jordan, a country where the cult of personality is not unknown, there were pictures of the two men, arm in arm: on billboards, on the walls of government offices, even on dustcarts. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]It was taken for granted that one day the picture would be of a King Hassan, joined perhaps by his son, Prince Rashid, until the day in January 1999 when a deathly pale Hussein, home after cancer treatment in America, sent the letter to his heir - a catalogue of alleged misdemeanours which shocked a nation that had been looking forward to Hassan's monarchy. The king accused the crown prince of "slandering" his wife and children. He said that the prince, in his dealings with the media, focused on "personality" instead of "content". He accused him of "meddling" in the army and sacking senior officers - all of which Hassan has since denied. [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The man who, as a result, lost his title of crown prince and saw his nephew Abdullah become king instead, has never before spoken about this in any detail. He is reluctant to do so now. But as we sit before a blazing fire in his house - a home, he says, rather than a palace, although it is within the royal compound - the pain is obvious. "It was," he says, "basically disappointing on a human level. After all, to me, to use the Arabic expression, Hussein was of me and I was of Hussein. It was just inconceivable that there could be a parting of the ways." He would have accepted the change of succession. "What upset me was the way that letter was sent. I answered it, but my answer wasn't published, so my side of the story has not been heard." [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]I ask if he feels he has been the victim of dirty tricks. He says only, "Now is the time to look forward, not back - and one day my explanation will be heard. Later, I ask a palace official who is close to the prince if Hassan felt betrayed. " Of course he did," the man said. "He is a prince. But he is also a human being." [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Prince El Hassan bin Talal is a 43rd generation Hashemite, a direct descendant of the prophet Mohammed. He is small in stature and has lost a great deal of weight since undergoing a procedure to widen an artery to prevent a heart attack. Educated at Harrow and Oxford University where he read Semitics - he took his Hebrew finals during the 1967 six-day war, soon after being made crown prince - he speaks colloquial English (and several other languages). It was at Oxford that he met his wife. They have four children - three girls and Prince Rashid, all of whom were educated in Jordan and in England, where he has a home. For years people have said that Hassan is too much of an intellectual. His answer to that is straightforward: "Bull****. Just because you like to think you know which way is up doesn't mean you are an intellectual." [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]He says that he is not looking for a job but if asked to mediate between Saddam Hussein and the allies, he would accept with alacrity, although he believes that the war is already won. "I would ask, how do we win the peace?" [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The trouble, he says, is that President Saddam has an "enormous ego". He met the leader in 1990 - when the prince was cut off mid-question by an aide. Nine years earlier, he had met him to discuss the Iran-Iraq war and "disagreed with him fundamentally". But he would give the mediation job a go, "even though I walk around with so many daggers in my back. I would say to Baghdad, 'Remember the importance of plurality.' I don't have an agenda. But I am prepared to go." [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Hassan says that there is a need for the entire area in which he lives to think in terms of being "a region - from Israel to India - cooperating with each other. It would be a Benelux-type community, "not one of oil and steel, but of energy and water". He would like to see an organisation of people from the region - Arabs and Israelis - meeting every three months. If he were secretary general of the UN, he would hope to have several security councils, looking after both police actions and social matters. "Every cow in Europe receives a subsidy of $2.50 a day. There are people in this part of the world living on less than $1 a day. Poverty is the recruiting ground for extremism." [/font]

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]He laughs his thunderous roar when he tells of the American millionaire who told him he was bad for business: "I said I regarded that as an accolade." That might not bode well for his future relations with America. He agrees. "If the idea of being secretary general of the United Nations is being Mr Nice Guy, I don't think I am cut out for that."[/font]

 

[shelley]

Good article, Papillion. Thanks for posting. I had read this but had forgotten about it, but this is not the article I was looking for. With that one, I was particularly struck by the fact it was in a tabloid newspaper, and at the time thought, what a good idea to print something of a more serious nature in a popular newspaper. I think it was the Daily Express. What particularly struck me was remark that the King got his Crown Prince to do some of his 'dirty' work, so he could remain Mr Nice Guy and the poor prince get the flak. Probably very true but not at all fair to P. Hassan