When the US magazine The Atlantic published an article by its national correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg about his interview and impressions of King Abdullah of Jordan, the country was swept by a political storm that has yet to quiet down. The problem isn't with what the king actually said in the interview; rather, it is with the perception it created of him at home. In fact, and at least from the perspective of the magazine's American readers, he did not say anything wrong or even controversial. The king appeared to be a modernising force with progressive views about transforming Jordan into a democracy with a constitutional monarchy that would act as a unifying symbol for all Jordanians. At the heart of the controversy was the word “dinosaurs” the king used to describe old guard Jordanian politicians. Another problem, as trivial as it may sound, was the facial expressions the king used, opening his eyes wide when an important tribal chief suggested hiring local young men as neighbourhood watch officials as in the old days. Other statements that were troublesome for the king included his anecdotal stories about other Arab leaders, mainly about Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, who, according to Goldberg's phrasing, were portrayed negatively by the king. From an American or Western perspective, where the media is open and aggressive and where politicians and the public are always engaging in some kind of debate or even at war with each other, the interview could hardly be qualified as a “scandal” or even as hard news. But in Jordan, or any other Arab country for that matter, where the media is not really free and where society is not as open or as free as in the US or the West, gestures, words, and facial expressions can have dangerous consequences. The manner in which the king conducted his free-style interview with the Atlantic was a disaster that could have been easily prevented. Although Goldberg did not commit unethical conduct as far his article goes and in describing the king's reactions and statements as he observed them during his stay and travels with the king in Jordan, it was a grave mistake to let Goldberg use his own words and impressions to create a psychological profile of the king. If this were war time, or in a different setting, this interview, and others like it the king has given in the past, could have been considered a treasure-trove of intelligence about the king, his family, his likes and dislikes, his vacation spots, how he governs his kingdom and who his enemies and his friends are. The king was too open and too trusting, and he did not take into the account the unintended consequences that can result from a failure to know how the Western media or Western journalists operate. Normally, professional journalists are out to write a story; they are not your friends. It would be unthinkable, for example, for a sitting president of the United States to allow this kind of free and unlimited access to journalists unless it was for a book or a biography, and even then presidents rarely veer from their prepared scripts and official remarks. In fact, Goldberg did what any crafty journalist would do when speaking to his subject by providing scope and context for the subject's statements, facial impressions, and demeanour. One incident that set off tribal sensitivities in Jordan was Goldberg's recounting of what took place in a meeting between the king and tribal elders in the southern town of Kerak. The story, as described by Goldberg, was about a simple yet brilliant idea put forward by one of the tribal leaders in Kerak to ease unemployment in the town. His idea was to have young and unemployed men perform something like a neighbourhood watch, just like in the old days, and without arming them with firearms, except for batons. In Goldberg's article, he described the king's “wide-eyed look” in reaction to the proposal, probably reflecting the king's surprise at the simplicity of suggestion. Obviously, the king was more interested in longer-term solutions to the woes of the Jordanian economy. Yet, the king's “wide-eyed look” was perceived to mean the king was looking down on the tribal leaders, who represent the traditional backbone of the Jordanian monarchy. However, the fault here was on the part of the royal court in allowing such easy and free access to the head of state and to a king whose words and utterances and even facial expressions do in fact matter and might even cause problems. The king also made a strategic blunder by letting his guard down in the presence of foreign journalists who by instinct are human tape-recorders and could act to unravel Jordan's relations with other Arab states or even damage the economy. There is also the cultural difference between the political terminology the king used in English, such as the word “dinosaurs”, which in English sounds normal in a western setting. However, in a traditional and tribal society such as Jordan, titles, status and prestige matter more, sometimes more than reality. Of course, this does not mean that Jordanian society should all of the sudden become Western in order to understand what the king means when he speaks. Instead, it is the other way around. The king's advisors should have advised him about the pitfalls of letting his guard down with foreign journalists, something that could be akin to stepping into a minefield. In addition, the remarks about the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood being a “Masonic cult” were taken literally, when in fact he was most likely referring to its proclivity for secrecy. However, using the term “Masonic cult” to describe an Islamist group is considered very offensive in Jordan. The same goes for his remarks about the Egyptian and Turkish leaders, which could have had dire political ramifications for Jordan, which needs friends and allies more than it needs enemies. The king also spoke about other important issues, such as the need to reform the Jordanian intelligence department, the mukhabarat, which has infiltrated Jordanian political and economic life and is responsible for sowing divisions within Jordanian society along Jordanian-Palestinian lines. Beyond the wrong impressions the interview created for him, the reality is that King Abdullah is trying to be a liberal and progressive reformer even as many in his inner circle are working against him, as he pointed out in the article. The sad reality for the king is that many in Jordanian society and in its political elite are more interested in gossip, as he pointed out, and in conspiracy theories about his facial gestures or the precise words he uses than they are in more important issues.
