In Jordan: An Interview with King Hussein

King Hussein of Jordan, a strong ally of Iraq, received Time Inc. Senior Editor Murray J. Gart and TIME Correspondent Dean Brelis last week in his private office on the ground floor of Basman Palace, overlooking Amman. Hussein, who ascended to the Hashemite throne in 1953, has survived a dozen attempts on his life to become the region's senior leader. Generally regarded as a moderate, he has maintained close ties to the U.S., even though he rejected the 1978 Camp David accords on the grounds that they did not go far enough toward solving the Palestinian problem. At 46, Hussein remains physically trim; what is left of his hair has turned gray, edged with pure white. Like the King's British-style mustache, his English during the hourlong interview was crisp, neat and unambiguous. Excerpts:

Q. How worried are you about Iran's design sin Iraq?

A. President Saddam Hussein is a man of vision and integrity. I always have the feeling I am dealing with a friend I can trust. We may disagree on what the best course is, but we somehow arrive at an amicable decision or compromise. I really believe Iraq is very, very important to the future of the entire area. It is the route to Saudi Arabia, the gulf, to the heart of the region.

Q. Should the gulf states be nervous about the Iran-Iraq war?

A. There is a possibility of a division between the Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. I believe this would be more devastating than anything else in this area. This [Islamic fundamentalist] movement takes its direction from Tehran, and it is like a tidal wave. Eventually it will disappear. But what damage it can cause in this area! It could take many governments with it. It would really bring this area closer to what we see happening everywhere [violent upheaval], unless the majority of Arabs stand up and face up to it.

Q. Are the Soviets using the Iran-Iraq war to move Into the area?

A. There seem to be two forces working to bring about this result, this polarization. At this stage, Iran has been receiving help from Israel on the one hand. On the other hand, it has been receiving Soviet-made equipment from countries in the area [such as Syria]. We know full well that the Soviets, as is the case with the U.S., would not permit any country to move military equipment to another country except with their approval. We know this because we had to sign such agreements.

Q. To what extent is the U.S. involved?

A. The U.S. is not directly involved. Israel is involved. But the U.S. is involved because of a lack of clarity of vision of what is at stake and of what Israel is doing on behalf of the U.S.

Q. What is at stake for the Arabs?

A. Our identity, our past and our link with our future generations--their freedom and their right to live as Arabs in their own part of the world. One sees many attempts, be it on this side or the other, to divide people into weak minorities, then into conflict and frustration. So we stand by Iraq because this is our future as well.

Q. What can the U.S. do?

A. The U.S. not only stopped sending arms to Iraq, it stopped any arms manufactured anywhere under American license and American components from reaching Iraq. We know that from personal experience because we looked for equipment in Western Europe and the Far East on Iraq's behalf. Meanwhile, the Israelis had [an arms) pipeline to Iran. Maybe something could be done about this.

Q. Could the Lebanon war have been avoided?

A. A different Arab world could have helped avert the disaster in Lebanon: it could have found and imposed a solution before the disaster occurred. Now one does not know. Now we have the problem of Beirut. This is the first time an Arab capital is beleaguered, with Palestinians and Lebanese inside.

Q. What is the outlook for Palestinians?

A. A solution must be found for the Palestinians. I so hope that somehow people will not fall into the same trap as they have before. I hope that after this particular disaster they will achieve something. There is talk of a holocaust. This is a holocaust! Maybe this is sufficient reason for the world and especially for the U.S. to reassess its attitude toward the disaster of this conflict. I can't see a solution to the Palestinian problem without the Palestinians participating. I don't see why the Soviets should be out of it, why Europe should be out of it, why people should be left out of any constructive effort. Very frankly, the image of the U.S. is really tarnished. It is not the image one would ideally have liked for the major power that is supposed to be neutral. The image of America is that of Israel's benefactor, Israel's supporter, right or wrong. This could all be changed if the U.S. opened up to the rest of the world and sought the world's cooperation in resolving this problem.

Q. Has your attitude toward the Camp David agreements changed?

A. Israel has destroyed Camp David by invading Lebanon. Camp David came at a certain period of time. We don't fault it for what it accomplished. But we fault it for what it did not accomplish. It did not accomplish a solution regarding the Palestinian problem, regarding the occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza, the Golan, regarding the territories occupied in June 1967 and the rights of [the Palestinian] people to self-determination. We wish the two principles that were applied in the Falklands crisis had been applied here: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the right of self-determination. This should be the basis of what we must resolve now. Or have these principles changed? Is the U.S. still for these principles or not? A new ball game is needed, an international conference that will give us a new beginning--with the participation of the parties concerned, including the Palestinians--to achieve a just and lasting peace. Otherwise, it will be blood, disasters, human suffering. Once again we are faced with the reality that the root cause of instability in this area is the Palestinian problem.

Q. What goes through your mind when you hear General Sharon or Prime Minister Begin say Jordan is "the Palestinian state"?

A. Sharon and Begin have this notion that they can impose a solution based not on the rights of people in their homelands, but as if the whole issue is one of finding a vacant lot to create a new state, and this vacant lot is Jordan. This is part of the mad world we live in. The [Israeli-occupied] city of Gaza was in fact the Gaza of Hashem. Hashem was the head of my family and of the Prophet Muhammad's family. Before the Prophet was born, Hashem was buried in Gaza. Sharon's family comes from Poland. Sharon says he is in his country and his area and I am a stranger to Jordan. This is an ironic thought, madness I suppose.

Q. Do you consider Israel itself to be the problem?

A. Not Israel as such. Israel's actions, its attitudes, its complexes, its hostility--these are the problems for the entire area, and eventually for Israel, Israel's existence is no longer a question.

Q. How has the P.L.O. performed in the war?

A. They have suffered. They have sacrificed a lot. They have sustained many losses. But they have also But they have also inflicted damage and losses on the Israeli side far greater than the Israelis have admitted up to now. In any event, what I think is important for the world to know is that even if Israel should continue in its action, and even if Israel destroys Beirut and the Palestinians there, the Palestinian cause is not over. The truth of the matter is that when people lose all their rights, all their human rights, individually and collectively--land, homes, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and human dignity--the kind of reaction is bound to be a terrible one, and the kind of reaction will be of such violence that it would not be limited to this area. It could be worldwide. And I am honestly saying that not only Israel will be a target, but the U.S. will be a target. Its interests will be a target, and many others. And who will be to blame?

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.