Not many world leaders really 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 February 7 of cancer, aged 63.

When King Hussein ascended the throne, Churchill, Truman and Stalin were still in power. Today's world is very different from theirs. No longer is the world dominated by these three great powers. The United States remains the only super power but fails to get its own way, especially in the Middle East, the most unpredictable and volatile region in the world.

King Hussein was a voice of moderation and reason in the region, working for peace with Israel and trying to contain the radical influences calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. For this reason his death could make a big difference. Even if his son and heir, King Abdullah, continues the same policies as his father, his lack of experience could still be a decisive factor in the Mideast cauldron.

Additionally, the sudden change in the succession just two weeks before the King's death may have led to division in the royal family and divided loyalties in the military and amongst the Bedouin clans (the support of all of these groups is needed by the new king to succeed). It is to be remembered that King Hussein was present when his grandfather, Jordan's first king, was assassinated in 1951 and survived more assassination attempts himself than any other monarch of the modern age.

An Autocratic Region

When we look at the recent history of the Middle East, it is very 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 turn have played major roles in the Middle East during this century, it remains the case that there is no democracy in the region, other than the Jewish state of Israel, which is only 50 years old. Many of the Arab nations that were carved out of the defeated Ottoman Empire following 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, leaving the monarchs with most of the power. Many of these monarchs and their children received their education and military training in Britain. They often had alliances with the British until Britain began withdrawing from the region following the loss of the Suez Canal in 1956. King Hussein received his education at Britain's most prestigious private school, Eton, followed by military training at Sandhurst. One of King Hussein's four wives was British. Their son now sits on the Hashemite throne. He speaks with a perfect British accent.

These monarchs have all been influenced by western ways and western thinking. Unfortunately, they have had to contend with a rising tide of Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism which has led to some of the thrones being overthrown and has made the future of the others uncertain.

Fifty Years of War

The post-World War II turmoil in the Middle East began with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, ending the British mandate over Palestine. Only two years before, the British had given independence to Jordan, installing the Hashemite King Abdullah on the throne. Upon the creation of Israel, Arab armies from Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon all tried to obliterate the Jewish state in its infancy. They failed, surprisingly because of support from Eastern Europe, communist nations hoping for a foothold in an area dominated by western colonial powers.

This failure by the Arabs eventually led to disgruntled army officers in Egypt overthrowing 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 the following 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 been fulfilled but a number of thrones were to fall in the following years. His overthrow led to a radicalization 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 fifteen years withdrew most of its military presence from the region. In 1958 Iraq's monarchy was violently overthrown, its young king and all the other members of the royal family executed. A period of political instability followed, ending only with the ascendancy of the ruthless President Saddam Hussein. Four years later Yemen's monarchy fell. Seven years later Libya's King Idris was overthrown by Colonel Gaddafi. Non-Arab but fellow Moslem Iran saw its Shah overthrown and a new radical Islamic regime take its place early in 1979. Ironically, the Iranians were celebrating the twentieth anniversary of their revolution the same week that King Hussein was buried.

As you can see from the above, each time a monarchy has been overthrown in the Middle East, a radical anti-western regime has replaced it. In most cases the army overthrows the monarch, Iran being the exception. The army usually attracts people who are less educated and not able to succeed in civilian society. The various radical presidents in the region bring to mind a scripture in Ecclesiastes 9:16-17: "Woe to you, O Land, when your king is a child (or slave-somebody from the bottom echelons of society), and your princes eat in the morning (unused to living well); Blessed are you, O Land, when your king is the son of nobles, and your princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness."

This is not to say that the monarchies in the region are perfect, by any means. Some of them are ostentatious with their wealth, thereby encouraging resentment and dissidence within their kingdoms. But their overthrow could unbalance the whole area.

Delicate Balancing Acts

There are still a number of pro-western monarchies left in the Middle East, notably the small Gulf states. But two are of particular importance: Saudi Arabia and Jordan. These are the two biggest in size and their geographical position makes both extremely important to the west. Both have radicals within their midst, both nationalists and fundamentalists. Some of those radicals are both. At this time, their strength is contained by the presence of their pro-western leaders. But it is interesting to note that their influence must be taken into account. When the U.S. and Britain sought support in December for their bombing raids on Iraq, not one of the pro-western leaders openly supported the allied 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 basically means patiently cooperating as the U.S. puts increasing 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 a negative for the kingdoms themselves, as their leaders can be blamed for American actions in the region, including "aggression" against Iraq.

King Abdullah 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 various desert tribes within Jordan; he has the sympathy and respect of the Israelis who sent a sizeable delegation to his father's funeral; he will again receive financial support from the Gulf states, support that was withdrawn when his father did not back the allies against Iraq; but he still retains Iraq's friendship and even Syria's.

He has everything going for him. The peace of the Middle East depends very much upon this man. WNP