In governing their nations, not many world leaders make a difference either in their own country or on the world stage. Even fewer make a positive impact.

One such man who made a difference was Jordan's King Hussein, who died of cancer earlier this year at age 63.

When Hussein ascended the throne, Winston Churchill, Harry Truman and Joseph Stalin were still in power. Our world is different from theirs. No longer do these three powers dominate it. The United States remains the only superpower but often fails to have its own way, especially in the unpredictable and volatile Middle East.

King Hussein was a voice of moderation and reason in the region, working for peace with Israel and trying to contain the extreme elements calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. The absence of his calming influence could create a political vacuum detrimental to the stability of the area. For this reason his death could make a big difference. Even if his son and heir, King Abdullah, continues the policies of his father, his lack of experience could be a decisive factor in the Mideast cauldron.

Additionally, the sudden change in the succession just two weeks before Hussein's death may have led to division in the royal family and divided loyalties in the military and among the Bedouin clans. Abdullah needs the support of all of these groups to succeed. He inherits a volatile throne. Hussein was at the side of his grandfather, Jordan's first monarch, when he was assassinated in 1951, and Hussein survived more assassination attempts than any other monarch of the modern age.

Autocratic Region

When we look at the recent history of the Middle East, it is clear that the stability of the region depends on the survival of the remaining monarchies in the area—Jordan and Saudi Arabia being the most important.

Although Britain and America in their turns played major roles in the Middle East during this century, no democracy in the region exists other than the Jewish state of Israel, which is barely 50 years old. Many of the Arab nations carved out of the defeated Ottoman Empire after World War I had kings, usually local emirs from Turkish days, installed on their thrones by Great Britain.

These were constitutional monarchies, but their parliamentary systems did not work well, and the monarchs held most of the power. Many of the monarchs and their children received their education and military training in Britain. They often maintained alliances with the British until Britain began withdrawing from the region after the loss of the Suez Canal in 1956.

King Hussein attended Britain's most prestigious private school, Eton, followed by military training at Sandhurst. One of his four wives was British. Their son now sits on the Hashemite throne.

These monarchs are all influenced by Western ways and Western thinking. However, they must contend with a rising tide of Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism, which has led to the overthrow of some monarchies in the region and made the future of the others uncertain.

Fifty Years of War

The post—World War II turmoil in the Middle East began in 1948 with the end the British mandate over Palestine and the establishment of Israel. Only two years before, the British had granted independence to Jordan, installing Hashemite King Abdullah on the throne. At the creation of Israel, Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon tried in vain to obliterate the Jewish state in its infancy.

This Arab failure eventually led to disgruntled army officers overthrowing Egypt's King Farouk in July 1952. Farouk was not pro-British but had an international reputation as a playboy and was perceived as a corrupt influence on the Egyptian people. After his overthrow, Farouk made a prediction: "Eventually there will be only five kings left in the world: the king of spades, the king of diamonds, the king of hearts, the king of clubs and the king of England."

Farouk's prophecy has not quite come to pass, but several thrones did fall in following years. His overthrow led to a radicalization of parts of the Arab world and increasing Soviet influence. The Russian presence has virtually gone, but the radicals remain.

Tumbling Monarchies

Britain lost control of the Suez Canal to Egypt's President Nasser four years after Farouk's overthrow and over the next 15 years withdrew most of its military presence from the region. In 1958 Iraq's monarchy was violently overthrown, and its young king and all members of the immediately royal family were executed. A period of political instability followed, ending with the ascendancy of ruthless President Saddam Hussein.

Four years later Yemen's monarchy fell. Seven years later Libya's King Idris was overthrown by Col. Gadhafi. Non-Arab but also Muslim Iran saw its shah overthrown and a new radical Islamic regime take its place early in 1979. Ironically, the Iranians were celebrating the 20th anniversary of their revolution the same week King Hussein was buried.

These examples show an unmistakable trend: Each time a Middle Eastern monarchy has fallen, a radical anti-Western regime has replaced it. In most cases the army has overthrown the monarch, Iran being the exception.

The radical presidents in the Mideast bring to mind an observation in Ecclesiastes 10:16-17: "Woe to you, country with a lad for king, and where princes start feasting in the morning! Happy the land whose king is nobly born, where princes eat at a respectable hour to keep themselves strong and not merely to revel!" (New Jerusalem Bible).

Some of the region's monarchies are ostentatious in their wealth, thereby encouraging resentment and dissidence within their kingdoms. But their overthrow could unbalance the area.

Delicate Balancing Acts

Pro-Western monarchies remain in the Middle East, notably the small Persian Gulf states. But two are of particular importance: Saudi Arabia and Jordan. These are the largest, and their geographical position makes them extremely important to Western interests.

Both have extreme nationalists and religious fundamentalists in their midst. The radicals' strength is contained by the presence of their pro-Western leaders, but their influence must be taken into account. When the United States and Britain sought support in December for their bombing raids on Iraq, not one of the pro-Western leaders openly supported the action. To have done so could have led to increased opposition in their own countries and their possible overthrow. They walk a fine line.

Because they are willing to work with the United States toward peace in the Middle East, which means patiently cooperating as the U.S. increases pressure on Israel to give up the occupied territories, the stability of the monarchies is important to the United States. However, the tie with America can be seen as negative for the kingdoms themselves because their leaders can be blamed for American actions in the region, including actions against Iraq.

Jordan's new king begins his reign with much in his favor. He has the goodwill of his subjects as a result of the respect and devotion accorded his father. He is well educated and has military experience. He understands the West and will likely continue to receive the aid his poor nation needs to survive.

He is married to a Palestinian, which should help him with the majority of his subjects who are also Palestinians. He has the support of the desert tribes within Jordan. He has the sympathy and respect of the Israelis, who sent a sizable delegation to his father's funeral. He will again receive financial support from the Persian Gulf states, support that was withdrawn when his father did not back the allies against Iraq. But he retains Iraq's friendship and even Syria's.

King Abdullah has much going for him. The peace of the Middle East depends much on this man. Time will tell whether—or for how long—he can withstand the pressures leading to instability in the region. GN