The King in Washington
Published in Al Ghad
(Jordan) on 7 December 2014
by Ayman al Safadi (link to original)
Washington did not open its doors for His Majesty King Abdullah II only to listen to his consultations regarding the priorities of the region and how to deal with its issues, and to affirm its political and economic support for the kingdom, for the sole reason that Jordan plays an influential role in the current regional international war against terrorism. It did so because the model presented by Jordan in its rational reform and peaceful policies has proven that it is the most capable in confronting the pests of extremism, mayhem, and political failure, which threaten the future of the Middle East, and thus the interests of America and the international community.
HM King Abdullah II headed to Washington with the confidence that his internal and external political proposals are logical after the failure of bets placing Jordan on the list of Arab countries eligible to collapse as it stood in front of the storms of the previous years. He imposed a positive context for his discourse in Washington, and the visit concluded with economic and political success.
The king’s visit will not change U.S. policy toward the region, but it will have an impact on it, and it will have a positive reflection on the bilateral relationship; this is an accomplishment in itself. Despite the disagreement with a number of American policies, the United States remains the sole superpower. Jordan is needed on the level of bilateral relationships, and it is affected by U.S. regional policies.
The success of the visit quickly surfaced on the bilateral level. The American president announced an increase in financial aid to Jordan, to reach $3 billion during the years 2015-2017, and affirmed his country’s obligation in standing by Jordan’s side as it faces the challenges of the phase with enlightened reform modus, targeting fundamental sustainable solutions for the crises of the region.
As for Washington’s policies toward the region, whether pertaining to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or other files, the change in the U.S. posture requires a shift in convictions, and this will not be realized without a dialogue similar to the ones held by HM with the U.S. decision-making centers in the administration and Congress.
This could be a long and certainly difficult operation, but the region doesn’t have the choice of halting the attempt to convince the United States to adopt policies that could help it overcome its crises. This being said, some of these crises had been fabricated by failed U.S. policies and false interventions by Washington in Middle Eastern affairs. A number of these crises, for subjective reasons tied to the potential and capability to influence, will not end if America doesn’t adopt different approaches in dealing with them. For example, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where HM stressed that the base of the conflict and the key solution is to treat a number of challenges, most importantly the “spread of despair” that gives birth to extremist challenges, will not be solved without an American intervention that exerts pressure on Israel. The war against terrorism needs the American military force. As for Syria, the needed political solution requires the weight — or influence — of the United States in the international and regional capitals that perpetuate the Syrian civil war.
The king is aware of all of this. Thus, he does not stop exerting every possible effort to engage in a dialogue with the decision-making centers in Washington with the intention of pushing toward more objective policies in Arab issues. The alternative is leaving the United States to record opponents and enemies.
Jordan’s stability in its positions, and its success in delivering a different image about an Arab world seen by the West as filled with failure and danger helped Jordan build the credibility that is needed by the king in his endeavors to influence the politicians of Washington and its policies in a way that serves Jordan and Arab issues.
HM King Abdullah II headed to Washington with the confidence that his internal and external political proposals are logical after the failure of bets placing Jordan on the list of Arab countries eligible to collapse as it stood in front of the storms of the previous years. He imposed a positive context for his discourse in Washington, and the visit concluded with economic and political success.
The king’s visit will not change U.S. policy toward the region, but it will have an impact on it, and it will have a positive reflection on the bilateral relationship; this is an accomplishment in itself. Despite the disagreement with a number of American policies, the United States remains the sole superpower. Jordan is needed on the level of bilateral relationships, and it is affected by U.S. regional policies.
The success of the visit quickly surfaced on the bilateral level. The American president announced an increase in financial aid to Jordan, to reach $3 billion during the years 2015-2017, and affirmed his country’s obligation in standing by Jordan’s side as it faces the challenges of the phase with enlightened reform modus, targeting fundamental sustainable solutions for the crises of the region.
As for Washington’s policies toward the region, whether pertaining to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or other files, the change in the U.S. posture requires a shift in convictions, and this will not be realized without a dialogue similar to the ones held by HM with the U.S. decision-making centers in the administration and Congress.
This could be a long and certainly difficult operation, but the region doesn’t have the choice of halting the attempt to convince the United States to adopt policies that could help it overcome its crises. This being said, some of these crises had been fabricated by failed U.S. policies and false interventions by Washington in Middle Eastern affairs. A number of these crises, for subjective reasons tied to the potential and capability to influence, will not end if America doesn’t adopt different approaches in dealing with them. For example, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where HM stressed that the base of the conflict and the key solution is to treat a number of challenges, most importantly the “spread of despair” that gives birth to extremist challenges, will not be solved without an American intervention that exerts pressure on Israel. The war against terrorism needs the American military force. As for Syria, the needed political solution requires the weight — or influence — of the United States in the international and regional capitals that perpetuate the Syrian civil war.
The king is aware of all of this. Thus, he does not stop exerting every possible effort to engage in a dialogue with the decision-making centers in Washington with the intention of pushing toward more objective policies in Arab issues. The alternative is leaving the United States to record opponents and enemies.
Jordan’s stability in its positions, and its success in delivering a different image about an Arab world seen by the West as filled with failure and danger helped Jordan build the credibility that is needed by the king in his endeavors to influence the politicians of Washington and its policies in a way that serves Jordan and Arab issues.