Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

Political review - Jordan

The changes that king Hussein carried out on Monday 25 January 1999, reflected in the removal of his brother Hassan and the appointment of his son Abdullah as crown prince, highlight on one hand the extent of the weakness to which both the Hashemite Throne and the Jordanian entity have degenerated. On the other hand, they highlight the fact that the dissolution of the Jordanian entity, as a prelude towards linking it with the formula of the final solution to the Palestinian issue, has effectively begun. These changes were not the result of current and local circumstances, rather they reflect the dilapidation caused by the American led political manoeuvres pertaining to the Palestinian issue and the Middle-East as a whole. Since the late eighties, when America embarked upon an effective process to solve the Palestinian issue, she began to tighten her grip around the Jordanian regime because it constituted an obstacle in the face of the American project aimed at establishing a Palestinian state, and because of Jordan’s close ties with Israel. These ties acted as a political buffer zone to the United States’ designs, aimed at establishing a host of arrangements for the region’s set-up, specifically through the cancellation of Jordan’s role as a British base. This came in the wake of America’s success in the mid-seventies, when she took over the crisis and started to call the shots in the Middle-East. Hence, she unleashed against Jordan the World Bank and the IMF, and this led to the decline of the Jordanian Dinar and the domestic economic recession, which in turn led to turmoil and disturbances. Jordan at the time responded when the king announced the separation and the disengagement from the West Bank.

The American pressure on the Jordanian regime continued after the second Gulf War, through the land and sea economic embargo, and the political siege imposed by Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in the face of which, the Jordanian regime could do little but offer more concessions and subjugation, as well as being forced to proceed with the Peace Process according to America’s wishes. Jordan became a foothold for the American forces in the south, the east and in the gulf of Al-Aqabah. The country turned into a dynamic area for the manoeuvres of the American ambassador and the rest of the diplomats at the embassy, as well as the intelligence personnel, especially after America had moved Middle-East intelligence centre to her embassy in Amman. These manoeuvres were extended to most of the country’s public utilities and to some influential economic figures; they were in fact a direct interference in the Jordanian domestic affairs. On one occasion the American ambassador held a meeting with leading businessmen in 1993 in which they discussed the VAT. In addition to this, a series of infiltrations within the army and the security services took place; these were highlighted by the nature of the transfers and dismissals that occurred, especially in the last two years. Also the law of what is known as "Impudence" which is in fact a trap used to highlight the extent of the resentment against the regime and its men, especially the king, though on the surface it is seemingly designed to protect him. Hundreds of personalities, politicians and others, were brought to the court under the pretence of this law and observers noted that many cases and charges were fabricated. There was also the American arms deals and the training and technical missions which America usually uses as a style to generate turmoil and buy people’s loyalty, just like she did with the Shah in the seventies.

These circumstances were accompanied by the exposure of the regime’s political and economic reality before the public opinion, especially after the king signed the Peace Treaty with Israel, known as the Wadi Araba Treaty, which was ostensibly sponsored by America, by encouraging the king to pursue it and by showering him with loans and first class attention. Meanwhile, she incited her agents in Syria and Egypt to attack the Jordanian regime and she kept Jordan politically isolated from her sphere. This led to further domestic confusion and to an impairment in the traditional political milieu of Jordan and in the domestic support of the regime, to the point where the issue of the king and what would happen to Jordan once he’s gone became the talk of the town. Calumniation and backbiting became a material for the local and even foreign press.

These circumstances were accompanied by a host of domestic crisis such as the bread crisis and the crisis of Mu’an, as well as the corruption cases that everyone talked about. The "Anti-Corruption Committee’s activities became dubious, especially when the names of prominent personalities were reported to be implicated in corruption scandals. In an answer to deputy Al-Hayari’s question, pertaining to the tasks of this Committee and what it had achieved, the prime minister described this Committee on 4 January 1999 as being a non governmental institution, which means that it would be fruitless to pursue it and account it. This also indicates that the Committee is managed according to a specific design, in order to bring down whoever it wished and spare whoever it wished from among the political milieu’s personalities and the rest of the influential people, in preparation of the men of the forthcoming stage, related to the future of the Jordanian entity and its role in the final solution to the Palestinian issue.

The meeting that took place in Washington on 6 January 1999 between Clinton, king Hussein, Samih Al-Battikhi, director of Mukhabarat, and Marwan Al-Ma’ashar, the Jordanian Ambassador, prior to the king’s departure to London, coupled with the revelation made by the king through his speech of 16 January 1999 that he delivered in London, in which he declared that he would carry out a comprehensive review in order to redress all the trends and that he remembered the 14 November 1952, the day he addressed the Jordanians from the same place (London), which was in the year he became king over Jordan, all this indicates that by returning to Jordan, with his illness taking it toll, king Hussein had come for specific matters related to arrangements for the Hashemite throne and to preparing Jordan, her men and her political milieu to enter in the forthcoming and final stage aimed at solving the Middle-East crisis. The fact that king Hussein was absent for all this time, and that fact that he returned in order to undertake these arrangements and then leaving again, indicates clearly that his role as a king is over and that politically and as a monarchy, this is the beginning of the end for the Jordanian entity, which will give way to either a constitutional and presidential monarchy or a merger, in one way or another, with the new Palestinian entity. The fact that he removed his brother Hassan and brought his son Abdullah, who is a political novice, is but a prelude for this matter in which he had no choice, especially that in the past few years, voices were raised demanding the restriction of the king’s mandates. The Hashemites were also subjected to direct criticism, including the king, and matters reached the point where he was asked to give a detailed account of his assets and properties; something which king Hussein did not attempt to conceal during the speech that he addressed to his brother last Monday.

In signing the Wye Plantation Agreement, in the presence of Arafat, Netanyahu and Hussein, the United States has achieved a major step towards the formulation of the final solution to the Palestinian issue, whose impact weakened the position of the Israeli government. America slammed the door shut in the face of the previous agreements such as Oslo and Wadi Araba and she forced the parties concerned to proceed according to the final solution’s format, which has a direct bearing on Jordan and keeps the Palestinian authority in its strongest position. The Israeli general elections will have the decisive effect on the direction towards which the Jordanian entity will be to the final solution; thus it was imperative for the king himself to initiate the arrangements, for he had no choice in what America wants except extinction.

The regime in Jordan and all the other puppet regimes in the Muslims’ lands, are stricken by several ills and because of them people are enduring a great deal of suffering. These regimes are not dependent in their existence upon the Ummah and the right conferred to her by Allah (swt) to appoint whoever she wished by way of consent and choice, so that he rules over her by the Shari'ah of Allah (swt). The domestic and foreign security of the Muslims has not been for one single day throughout this dark period of the Ummah’s history in their own hands, with their own force and the force of Islam. The existence of these entities was due to the dilapidation of the states of Kufr’s policies and their interference in the region.

The Muslims reserve the exclusive right to determine who rules over them. When their own determination and the dormant forces of good in them are stimulated, they will be capable of appointing and giving the Baya’a to a Khalifah from amongst them to rule them by the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) and to proceed with them towards leading the world and salvaging it from the misery it had plunged into. The Muslims are also capable of soon turning the whole region into a graveyard for America and her agents, of foiling her wicked colonialist policies and of pulling the carpet from underneath the feet of the corrupt political milieus, which have become haunts for conspiracies and intrigues against the Ummah, her lands and her issues.

Allah (swt) says: T.M.Q. "And soon will the unjust assailants know what vicissitudes their affairs will take." [26-227]
 
The Media Forum of Hizb ut-Tahrir
 
10 Shawwal 1419h
27 January 1999

www.hizbuttahrir.org