DENNIS: Why is there so much opposition in the Arab world to military action against Iraq?

HASSAN: I don’t think the elite are saying the United Nations is to be blamed for irresponsible actions in threatening the use of force. However, I think that the threat of force should be used as a stick which you wave, but you don’t necessarily beat the Iraqis with. Let’s look at North Korea, for example. North Korea possesses more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq ever imagined. And if we speak about ego, look at [the late] Kim Il Sung and compare him with Saddam Hussein. You are speaking of pretty large egos. The moment came when Russia and China and the Pacific Rim countries said to the North Koreans enough is enough. But the stick also came with a carrot.

And the anger among the Arab people?

Clearly, there’s a deep sense of humiliation and outrage. You see the Palestinian demonstrations [supporting Iraq]. Why aren’t United Nations resolutions being implemented [in the Israeli-occupied territories]? There is this impression of duality of implementation of U.N. resolutions. As far as people are concerned, it’s all very well for officials in the West to stand up and say we are not targeting civilians [in Iraq]. Well, clearly nobody in his right mind is going to target civilians. [But] there is no such thing as a clean war.

Edward Said, a noted Palestinian intellectual who teaches in America, recently wrote that the possibility of a military strike against Iraq reflects the failure of Washington’s Middle East policy. Do you agree?

Let me look at the absence of policy since 1990. Every initiative taken has been taken by countries in the region, albeit [with the] support of the United States. We signed a peace treaty, we go to the United States to shake hands on the White House lawn, we get the imprimatur of approval and the readiness to support. But I don’t see a moderate consensus being supported in the seven or eight years that have passed.

What is the American policy, as you see it?

American think tanks present it as being governed by three vested interests: oil, weapons sales and the qualitative advantage of, and strategic relationship with, Israel. But we believe in people politics, not petrol politics. What you have today is selective commercial relations, as opposed to an overarching understanding of the importance of a new code of conduct.

What would that new code be?

I would very much like to see this region [have] a conflict-resolution center. We have weapons of mass destruction, I assume, in Iran, Turkey, Syria, Israel, Egypt. If there’s a bombing of Iraq, and if Iraq breaks up, you may end up with small groups of determined fanatics, possibly carrying weapons of mass destruction. The fiction of a film like “[The] Peacemaker” is not that far-fetched.

How should America take the lead?

By moving to a statesmanlike view of the region. When three countries attacked Egypt over the Suez Canal in 1956, it was the United States who called it off. President Eisenhower said enough is enough, and he won considerable respect in the region.

Jordanian businessmen I talked with fear a military strike against Iraq could seriously hurt Jordan’s economy. Why?

It would have a direct effect on the region as a whole. Investment and tourism would clearly be hit. Exports to Iraq today represent $255 million, which is approximately 50 percent of our exports, and our industries are only working at 55 percent capacity. Jordan offers the private investor one of the most favorable commercial-policy regimes in the Middle East. But of course, where does it all fall down? On the possibility of regional instability.

What is the endgame with Iraq?

You have to look at an interim period. You have to look at the [social] contract between Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs. You have to look at [fostering] pluralism.

You’re saying you must look at a post-Saddam scenario?

If that’s the ultimate objective.

If Saddam sees the same scenario, perhaps he’s thinking he has nothing to gain by complying with the U.N. weapons inspections and would rather keep whatever weapons he still has.

That’s quite right.

The king recently underwent medical tests in England. How is his health?

Well, I left him a couple hours ago and he looked fine to me. I think he’s in good health, but my brother likes to let people be aware of what the score is.