|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Story of Jordan: The Hashemites and Jordan Professor Kamel S. Abu Jaber, President, Jordan Institute of Diplomacy Introduction It is impossible to tell the story of Jordan in the last; and this century, without linking it to the Hashemite monarchs whose lives were intertwined with it. Though Jordan has always existed as a geographic expression on the map of the Middle East; it was, however, almost always part of a larger political entity. In the last three millennia only twice has Jordan been host to an indigenous regime: The Nabateans (sixth century B.C-106 A.D) and the Hashemite regime since 1921. In a travelling artifacts exhibition that toured major cities of the West a few years ago, Jordan celebrated nine thousand years of history. A stupendous succession of civilizations, not only political regimes, succeeded one another since that time. Every village, town, Tell, mountain, or human habitat attests to this, and to the accumulation of culture upon culture since the dawn of modern history. Pre history records continuous human settlement for the past 500000 with exotic names like the Acheulian period (c.300000 B.C), the Lavalloiso-Musterian culture (c.50000 B.C), the Kebaran culture (c.17000 B.C), the Natufian Culture (c.105008300 B.C), and the rich Neolithic archaeological site of Ain Ghazal in Amman, and Tleilat Ghasul in the Jordan Depression with its painted frescos, 5000 years ago. The Bronze age (3000-1200 B.C) is represented by scores of sites in Jordan which was home to the Kingdoms of the Ammonites, Edomites, Moabites, Gileadites which gave way to the Persian Empire after 539 B.C. The fourth century B.C. witnessed the introduction of the Hellenistic era to be followed by the Roman Empire from 63 B.C. to 324 A.D. This was the period on which the Nabatean Kingdom flourished in south Jordan until the Romans conquered it and occupied its capital Petra. The Romans were followed by the Byzantines until the advent of Islam. Since then, religion, language, culture and values have been those of Islam and Arabism. Jordan later became part of the Uramayyad, Abasside, Fatimide, Ayyubide Mamluke and Ottoman dynasties. This period was interrupted by the Crusades with the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 and their defeat at the Battle of Hittin on July 4, 1187. Following the Ottoman defeat in the First World War the country witnessed the advent of British Colonial rule and then the Hashemites, since the establishment of the modern Jordanian. Emirate in 1921. Jordan in Modern Times From its very establishment in 1921 Jordan´s image has been much larger than its geographic and demographic dimensions. Accounting for this, no doubt, is the noble lineage and the caliber of its leadership. Over the decades of the past century, that image grew larger and brighter again because of that rare chemistry between the leadership and the people. Emir, later King Abdullah the First was an exceptional man who in his personality embodied vision with pragmatism. The fortieth descendent in the line of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), his ancestry gave him not only confidence and legitimacy but expanded his vision beyond the confines of Jordan´s geography. Till this day, the foundation he laid in the art of good governance, which he mastered superbly, remain the guide posts for the state of Jordan. By virtue of his education, family and cultural back ground, King Abdullah was a natural political figure who came perhaps closest to the Plato´s idea of a philosopher King. Firmness was balanced with leniency and an abhorance to resort to violence. The aim of the state he thought is the welfare and respect of its citizens and the nurturing of a healthy relationship between the Rulers and the Ruled. Yet, for this to be achieved there is need to establish stability. Only in a dynamic yet stable society can security be achieved. And here again security to him meant more than the police or military dimension to transcend that to the socio-economic dimensions as well. Both domestically and abroad King Abdullah was aware of the patrimony of his venerable father, the Grand Sherif of Mecca al-Hussein Bin Ali, leader of the Great Arab Revolt. The grand Sherif al-Hussein Bin Ali was not only aware of his noble lineage with its religions dimension, but also of his nationalist commitments to the ideals of the Great Arab Revolt which he led. The political content of the Revolt was the objective of uniting the Arab World in a nation that could meet the requirements of modernity. Though throughout his life he was concerned with the political dimension of the Arab struggle: first independence then development, the Sherif was aware of the need to structure an Arab message; a regime that could meet the challenges, while recapturing the glorious Arab civilization of the past. None of the Hashemite monarchs of Jordan in the twentieth century needed to search for their roots, nor attempt to establish legitimacy. For several generations before their ancestors held the great honor and office of the Emirs of Mecca. King Abdullah II now, like his father Hussein, grand father Talal, great grand father Abdullah I, and indeed his great great grandfather the Grand Sherif of Mecca seem to have been born to their office and role. King Talal bin Abdullah´s reign was short lived due to health reasons. Yet he too is credited with tangible contributions towards the image and the texture of the Jordanian state. It was in his time that the present liberal Jordanian constitution was passed. His image in the minds of the people of his generation is that of a kind, reclusive and austere person. His reputed negative relationship with Sir John Bagot Glubb Pasha, symbol of British presence in Jordan earned him additional love in the heart of Jordanians. Till this day many Jordanians view his brief reign as a sorrowful nationalist dream. Though each of the Hashemites of Jordan was unique in his own right, Hussein son of Talal remains a special case. As a youth of only fifteen he witnessed with his own eyes the assassination of his beloved grandfather in Jerusalem. In fact he himself escaped a similar fate on that day in 1951 had not his grandfather presented him with a medal which prevented a stray bullet from entering his chest. Within the short period of less than two years he had to endure the deteriorating health of his father on a daily basis. The resultant abdication of King Talal thrust the young King, barely seventeen years of age to the center stage of Arab and world politics. It is interesting and noteworthy that when he wrote the story of his life, he entitled it, Uneasy Lies the Head. Surely the head of a monarch or Ruler who truly cares for his people and their welfare, must lie uneasy in that his concerns and worries go beyond himself to the larger social unit, his state. Hussein, to the day of his death addressed the people as "my Jordanian Family". As the child of his culture and Islamic roots, he naturally assumed the role of the Patriarch. The Patriarch in Arab culture, however his role may be viewed elsewhere, personally cares for every member of his family, even those who may sometimes challenge his authority. The "Hair of Mu´awiyyah" connecting the Patriarch with each member of the social unit should never be allowed to break. As the Caliph Mu´awiyyah once remarked should the other end of the Hair be pulled, "I will relent" and should that Hair be too slack, "I will pull". The connection, however the tension must never be allowed to reach the breaking point. It was from this understanding and from this vantage point that even the opposition was not allowed. to stray away too far; or for the wounds of enmity to deepen. Even those who actively conspired his assassination or a coup d´etat, the late King sooner or later pardoned, rehabilitated, patiently reeducated and eventually coopted them in the service of the state. A number of these individuals later assumed some of the highest offices of the state including that of Foreign and Interior ministers, chief of Public Security and Chief of the General Directorate of Intelligence. His style in dealing with the opposition resembles to great extent the Biblical story of the prodigal son. King Hussein commenced his reign in one of the most difficult periods in modern Arab history. The late forties and fifties of the past century witnessed the process of the emerging independent Arab states. Most of these states emerging from and immediate suppressive colonial rule and the preceding few centuries of traditional Ottoman administration, had little in terms of experience or precedent to rely upon in good governance. Their response to the twin external and internal challenges was often immature, even faulty. They could find not a moment of respite to deeply consider or plan their next step. They were hounded by an explosion of ideologies, mostly across frontiers that demanded immediate remedies. The fifties of the twentieth century was the period that witnessed the plethora of Pan-Arab, Pan-Islamic ideologies as well as Ba´thism, Nasserism, The Arab Nationalist Movement as well as the Communists and a great variety of socialist strains. It was also the period that witnessed the aggressiveness and militarism of the newly Established state of Israel. Israeli attacks in this period not only inflamed Arab passions in the street but put to question the very legitimacy of the Arab state system. The political parties and movements of the period offered grandiose totalitarian ideologies that transcended the boundaries of the state. Whether internationalist, Pan Arabist or Pan Islamists, these movements measured the legitimacy of the state against how it dealt with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Slogan replaced reason and a cloud of romantic, impractical rhetoric descended on the region. Those few who counselled caution, planning and a rational approach were ostracized. And a situation arose where the street, whose passions were quickly aroused, led the nation. This was the general situation and the atmosphere when the then young King Hussein began his reign. The threat to his life and to his reign was never absent or to be discounted. The situation was exacerbated by the series of coups d´etats by army officers in several Arab countries. These mostly young officers further, even woefully inexperienced in governance offered simplistic panacea and so-called "reforms" that appealed to the masses. Not only the politics but the economics of many of the countries of the region were experimented with in such a way as to muddle and retard them for generations to come. Land "reform", "Etatism" called socialism was no more than the clumsy bureaucratic state socialism and ill-conceived nationalization. The masses who saw only the flash never saw what lay beneath nor did they contemplate the long term effects. "Uneasy. Lies the Head that bears the Crown". No wonder with the then young King having to deal with such momentous issues. Yet somehow he maintained a cool headedness and steadfastness that will remain a study in political acumen for a very long time to come. Tremendous and shocking political earthquakes hit the region, and the country, in the decade dividing the British-French-Israeli coordinated attack on Egypt in 1956 and the disastrously unplanned 1967 Arab defeat. Inside the country the euphoric nationalistic, socialistic sloganeering of the 1950´s translated itself in creating tremendous tension culminating in the 1957-58 attempted coup d´etat. It was only due to the personal courage of the young King himself who single handedly met the advancing troops on their way from Zarka to Amman that foiled the attempt. The declaration of marshal law kept the lid on the tension inside the country within manageable bounds. The 1956 attack on Egypt galvanized the region behind a strong anti-Western sentiment which was nurtured by the then East-West confrontation: A confrontation that remained until the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late eighties and early nineties. One of the hidden and sinister by products of this bipolar confrontation was that Arab problems, in particular the Palestine problem, remained in the freezer of that East-West confrontation until the collapse of Communism. King Hussein was aware of the implications of this condition, as well as his awareness of the successful Western efforts after 1967, to exclude any outside interference in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It was thus that from 1967 till 1991 that no power or combination of powers could move the Israelis to think seriously of implementing United Nations Security Council 242, 1967 or to abide by international law. The Arab defeat of 1967 remains the watershed of Arab politics since. The dark cloud that engulfed the Arab World causing the total collapse of the Arab National Security System remains over the region now. King Hussein´s previous advice counselling caution went unheeded. Again, and before any of the other Arab leaders or intelligentsia, he realized the implications of that total defeat. From that moment on he understood that the Arabs must sue for peace, and this time from a terribly weak position. The situation was exacerbated by two momentous developments: the first was the unilateral Egyptian decision to negotiate directly with Israel culminating in the conclusion of a peace treaty between the two states, and the second development since the commencement of the Madrid Peace Process was the Israeli success to exclude even the United States from any meaningful input into the Arab-Israeli, and later Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The first Gulf war between Iran and Iraq further fragmented the Arab body politic with some Arab states supporting Iran while others stood on the side lines watching the bloody conflict progress. After eight years that consumed untold material and human resources and left the region in a state of emotional exhaustion, the war finally ended. Not ended, however, were the scars it left on the psyche of the entire Middle East nor the lingering suspicions and animosities it generated. King Hussein´s nationalistic support of neighbouring Iraq was without hesitation and was highly appreciated by Arabs throughout the region. Hardly two years had passed when the region was rocked with yet again another calamitous event. The occupation of Kuwait by Iraq was a disaster of similar if not greater consequence than that of the 1967 defeat. Among other things it further exposed the terrific divisions within the Arab ranks: A division that everyone was aware always existed on the regime-leadership level, which, this time went all the way down to the street and masses level. Again King Hussein´s warnings of the dire consequences of the disastrous occupation and his call on the Iraqi leadership to withdraw went unheeded. His courageous and nationalistic call that the issue be resolved within the Arab fold, too, went unheeded. Though he never supported the occupation of a sister Arab states, his mere call to exclude outside Western interference in.the crisis was deliberately misunderstood and misrepresented in Western, and certain Arab media, as if Jordan supported Kuwait´s occupation. Jordan paid and continues still this day to pay for the sanctions imposed on Iraq, and much of the economic difficulties of the country can be traced to these sanctions. Between Israel on the one side and Iraq and oil on the other, Jordan´s position was and remains a difficult one. The late King was aware of the vital importance of these two Western interests in the region and their inter connectedness. Until the day he died he expressed his concern for the territorial integrity of Iraq and the welfare of its people. And while keeping a distance between himself and the Iraqi leadership he never relented in his demand that a Western-Iraqi dialogue be, commenced that should lead to the rehabilitation of Iraq into the international community and lifting of the sanctions too. And in his characteristic courage he plunged himself and the country in the pursuit of peace with Israel. Yet the peace he wanted, was to be, he hoped just and comprehensive. Only thus would it be permanent. To him peace was not merely the absence of violence, but a positive condition in which lingering doubts and historical animosities would recede. His was a strategic and not a tactical peace and unfortunately he never lived to see the peace consummated. His role was a pivotal one, and the memory of him rushing from his hospital bed to Washington to support the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and give them new life, will remain imprinted in the minds and hearts of people for a very long time to come. Hussein, like Jordan the country, was an idea more than a man. His vision and his dreams transcended the geographic and demographic dimensions of the country. His was a dream of a modern Jordan living at peace with itself and others: an island of stability, sanity, moderation and rationality within the shifting sands of the area. His awareness of the nature of his people and his uncanny intuition to their political pulse was a rare talent which allowed him to sift through the interplay of myth and reality of Arab, regional and international politics. His death and his funeral were an occasion that brought together a fantastic array of world leaders. Disparate as they were in language, color, race; religion and political orientation: from the North, South, East and West; their presence symbolized a world consensus on honoring a man who till the end was attempting to establish a culture of peace in the region were none ever existed before. With his death not only an old century for Jordan was closed, but also the ushering in of a new dawn, a new beginning with a young monarch whose eyes and face look to the future and how can an ancient culture reconcile itself with it. Abdullah II ascended the throne the day his father passed away into the folds of history. The cry "... the king is dead, long live the king" and the smoothness with which the successions occurred were a testimony to the strength of Jordanian institutions. It also symbolised Jordanian support to the institution of the throne. King Abdullah´s ascendancy to the throne came as a surprise to him and since his reign commenced he turned out to be an exemplary leader who impressed not only his peoples but the entire world as well. In the short period of his rule he emphasized Jordan´s connection and relatedness to the international community: a community that always appreciated Jordan´s moderate and peaceful nature. On the Arab level King Abdullah mended fences reassuring one and all of Jordan´s intention to maintain its regional role as a stable peace maker. And though he has been in office less than a few months he became a major actor in regional affairs. With the Syrians and Lebanese he was the friend and brother counselling caution while mediating Syrian-Israeli peace negotiations that were halted for: years. On the Palestinian-Israeli track too he has been playing a positive role in narrowing the gaps and pushing both sides to the negotiating table. Again in the very short time since his assumption to power he eased the tension in the Jordanian Gulf relations and slowly but surely reinserted Jordan in its old role as an important factor in Gulf affairs. On the domestic level his imprint and new style is already leaving its mark. His concern for the socio-economic development of the country has not only been displayed by his active participation in international regional economic fora, but in his immediate domestic input as well. His meetings with chairmen of multinational companies to invest in Jordan, as well as his chairmanship of a Jordanian advisory economic council attest to his commitment. King Abdullah´s style of checking on socio-economic services in the country in disguise have already earned him a legendary international reputation. The disguise re-establishes an ancient Arab Muslem style of a Ruler´s personal care for the welfare of his people. The legendary rounds in incognito by the Caliph Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, second Caliph following the death of the Prophet Muhammad are today revived by the young monarch of Jordan and the 43rd generation in line of the Prophet himself. Torna indietro |
||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
