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.

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.

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 (&#33:

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).