14 March 2003
Ever since UN sanctions were imposed on Iraq, Jordan has been the only gateway to and from Baghdad. Ahead of the last Gulf War, the late King Hussein of Jordan played a major role mediating between Saddam Hussein and the international coalition that eventually drove Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991. Accused of siding with Iraq, Jordan was snubbed by the US, as well as its Gulf neighbors, and Saddam compensated for some of the losses by supplying Jordan with oil outside the UN oil-for-food program, half in grant form. Jordan has since developed a special relationship with the US. As Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher told Energy Intelligence’s Ruba Husari in an interview in Amman this week, this time round Jordan is making the safeguarding of its own interests, including its US relationship, its top priority.
Q: What has changed in Jordan to make it take a back seat in the current Iraqi crisis, compared to 1990, when it played a direct role in mediations to prevent war?
A: There are many differences. Then, we had a very close relationship with Iraq and felt we could mediate between it and the rest of the world. We don’t feel the same today. More important, the relationship between Jordan and the US is not what it used to be. Since we signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, we have what has become a strategic relationship both on the political and economic levels. Economically, we export $500 million worth of goods a year and it’s our No. 1 export destination. We get $450 million in direct assistance. Politically, we coordinate very closely on issues such as the peace process. All in all, while we differ on ways to solve the Iraqi issue, we’re not going to jeopardize our relationship with the US because of the differences over Iraq. We have worked very hard at this relationship. It has allowed us to do very good things for our economy, it has allowed Jordan to be candid with the US on such issues as the peace process, and it has allowed us a voice in Washington that was not possible to that extent in the past. It’s a relationship that we intend to keep. It does not mean that we see eye to eye on all issues, but it also means that it has become one of great importance to Jordan.
Q: Does this mean that Jordan has switched camps between 1990 and now?
A: Not necessarily. We have made it clear that we don’t think war is the solution, but we also don’t believe we can stretch ourselves and do things beyond our capabilities. What we’re saying is that this is about us. We have tried, and we continue to try, to avert war. If it cannot be avoided, then it goes out of our hands and into the hands of the US, the UN, and Iraq. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with putting Jordan’s interests ahead of any other interests.
Q: What is your leverage with the US today?
A: I think the strength of Jordan is certainly not through its size, but the model it’s promoting in the region of a country with an open system both politically and economically. We play a certain role in the peace process. And because of the unique role we have with the US, the Arabs, and the Palestinians, we are able to counsel on the best way to move the peace process forward. The road map, for example, is broadly a Jordanian idea, and one we have successfully argued with the US president. We explained that it is not enough to give a vision for a two-state solution, but to give people hope by charting a course where they can be credibly assured of an end to the conflict. Even on Iraq, we have many times counseled the US on how best to approach this.
Q: Are you able to offer the US any aid if and when war takes place?
A: We have made it clear that Jordan cannot and will not participate. We are not being asked to do that in any way. Jordan will not be a launchpad and will not be sending troops into Iraq. The US understands perfectly the limits of our capabilities, and that doing so will invite public unrest. It is also something against the policies of the Jordanian government, and will not happen. No operations will take place from Jordan.
Q: How would you substitute the oil imports you have been getting from Iraq on favorable terms? Did you reach a deal during King Abdullah’s visit to Riyadh last month?
A: We hope oil supplies will not be discontinued because of war, because that remains the cheapest and most convenient way of getting oil. If that is not possible, we will need to find alternatives. We are in discussions with many countries. And without going into much detail, we are reasonably confident such alternative sources will be available. As to our visit to Riyadh, I cannot go into details of what was discussed.
Q: There were reports from Washington saying a deal has been worked out where Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will supply 50,000 barrels per day each, and the UAE another 20,000 b/d.
A: That story has yet to be substantiated. We have not received anything formal to suggest the kind of figures being mentioned. There is no need to go into this kind of detail before any deal is concluded.
Q: What kind of relationship do you imagine Jordan might have with Iraq after a war?
A: If war takes place, there’s no question that Jordan will continue to have good relations with Iraq. Iraq is a neighbor and we cannot but have good relations. We have concerns about the aftermath. The first is Iraq’s territorial integrity. This has to be preserved at all costs. We also feel strongly that the Iraqis should govern themselves, and not live under occupation. We are neighbors, and it is our right to expect this in a region that could witness great instability should foreign troops stay in Iraq for a long time. As long as Iraqis govern themselves freely, I don’t see why we shouldn’t have very good relations.
Q: How long do you expect US troops to stay in Iraq?
A: There is no question that arrangements have to be made for the interim period. The most important thing is that these arrangements preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq, and that they only last a short time until an Iraqi government emerges that can hold the country together and rule effectively.
Q: Would the presence of the US troops have implications for Jordan?
A: The US troops are going to be looked at as a foreign occupying power by the Iraqis — by the whole region — and that will invite instability. At the same time, you want to make sure the country remains united. How you satisfy these conditions is not clear at this point.
Q: Do you think the UAE’s initiative in asking Saddam Hussein to cede power and leave Iraq is practical?
A: I think [UAE President] Sheikh Zayed has the best of intentions. He tried to offer a solution that in his opinion could save the whole region from war. It did not ask the Arab League to endorse regime change in Iraq — it’s up to the Iraqis to do that. The Arab League is not in the business of changing leaders, and that’s why it was not discussed.
Q: Could the idea save Iraq?
A: That question should be directed to the US and the Security Council. We have not yet heard from the US whether the idea would be acceptable. To my knowledge, there has been no detailed proposal put forward. That choice is not up to us, it’s up to the Iraqis.
Q: Do you support it?
A: We have not commented. Some Gulf states expressed support when it was presented to the Gulf Cooperation Council summit. At the Arab summit, it was not put to a vote [and] the letter was circulated without formal or informal discussions because the secretary-general of the Arab League felt that by doing so he might be inviting a split. There’s no consensus within the Arab League for regime change.
Q: Are you concerned that another war in the region might affect stability in Jordan?
A: We are past the point where the country’s stability might be at stake. We are more concerned about prosperity and development, both economically and politically. If there is war, I think people will be vocal and we will see demonstrations, but these won’t be against the government, but will be anti-war and against the US. I don’t see these demonstrations threatening internal stability.
Q: Wouldn’t anti-US demonstrations jeopardize Jordan’s relationship with the US?
A: No. I think the US understands the tightrope we’re walking, and that we cannot stifle freedom of expression. People are angry — not just here, but all over the world. We have also made it clear that we do not want to see war in the region, and I think people need to express their opinion. That does not mean this will stand in the way of maintaining good relations with the US.
Q: Do you believe the US war on Iraq is a first step towards restructuring the whole region?
A: Restructuring can be positive or negative. If you mean this idea that somehow war is bringing democracy to the region, we beg to differ. We’ve made the point that democracy is necessarily homegrown and necessarily evolutionary. If the US wants to help us accelerate the pace, work with us to open up the systems of the region — that would be very welcome. If the US wants to inject democracy by force and inject it based on a vision of democracy, without taking into consideration the cultural aspects of the region, or without paying attention to its evolutionary nature, then it could result in very negative repercussions. We don’t want to radicalize the region. We want to democratize it. We need to do that in an orderly and evolutionary manner.
Q: Do you worry that other regimes in the region might be next after Iraq?
A: It’s not a question of other regimes, but a question of the future of the region. If we all want a better future then we all have responsibilities. We have responsibilities as Arabs to open up our systems. The US has a responsibility to help us do so, but also to move on the Arab-Israeli conflict. So we can do this right, or we can do it in a way that very quickly leads to radicalization of the region.
Q: Do you believe, as some say, that this war is about oil?
A: I don’t think it’s a black-and-white issue. A combination of factors have led us to where we are today in which oil is probably an element.
Q: There have been incidents in past months involving Al-Qaeda cells. Isn’t this an element of instability in Jordan?
A: We have been fighting Al-Qaeda since at least 1990, when Jordanians who were Al-Qaeda operatives came back from Afghanistan in the late 1980s. The incidents are the work of a few dozen, nothing more than that, and we’ve worked against them with very good results. But to say we have some cells in Jordan is not the same as saying the country is destabilized. We worry about their subversive activities, but we see no evidence that they enjoy support in Jordan.
Q: Would the peace process find a new momentum once the dust of war settles?
A: To continue to ignore the Israeli-Palestinian problem and not engage seriously in implementing a course that would lead to the end of occupation while we have a war against Iraq is going to be catastrophic. This view is shared by everyone around the world, including the UK, America’s best ally. It is clear that unless the international community moves to end occupation, this region will face major instability for a very long time to come. This is the No. 1 issue that we will be pushing the US and others around the world to move on, especially with the road map that we have worked on to end the conflict. What is needed is not an academic exercise, but to implement the road map in full and in a way that would lead to the end of occupation in three years.
(Published in Energy Compass March 14, 2003)