Interview Facing a No-Win Scenario

By DEAN FISCHER and JAMES WILDE AMMAN 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.