Dynastia Haszymidów objęła władzę nad ziemiami obecnej Jordanii ponad 100 lat temu w 1921 roku. Po 1950 roku monarchia jordańska zmagała się z wielu zagrożeniami, zwłaszcza ze strony lewicy panarabskiej. Haszymidzi przez wiele dziesięcioleci traktowali umiarkowanych fundamentalistów muzułmańskich jako de facto sprzymierzeńców. Główna organizacja sunnickiego fundamentalizmu, Bractwo Muzułmańskie, była i jest do dziś w pełni legalna i prowadzi w królestwie działalność religijną, społeczną i polityczną. Po 1989 roku Bractwo Muzułmańskie stało się główną siłą polityczną Jordanii. Za panowania Abd Allaha II dwór jordański stara się ograniczyć siłę polityczną fundamentalistów. Umiarkowany islamizm pozostaje jednocześnie w pełni równoprawną częścią społeczeństwa. Równocześnie Jordania zdecydowanie zwalcza wszelkie nurty radykalnego islamizmu (dżhadyzmu). Król Abd Allah II zdecydowanie sprzeciwia się też wzrostowi wpływów Iranu w regionie.
Region Bliskiego Wschodu jest znany z antyzachodnich nastrojów. Mimo to wiele rządów arabskich prowadzi prozachodnią politykę. Jednym z państw współpracujących z Europą i USA jest Jordania. Taka opcja polityczna monarchii haszymidzkiej ma jednak głębokie przyczyny historyczne i wynika z nietypowych uwarunkowań tego państwa. Należy przypomnieć, że samo powstanie Jordanii wynikało ze współpracy władz brytyjskich z Haszymidami. Państwo to utworzono w 1921 r. początkowo pod nazwą Transjordania, w wyniku decyzji politycznych Londynu. Od tego czasu do 1956 r. trwała współpraca Ammanu z Wielką Brytanią. Fakt, że w 1946 r. Jordania uzyskała niepodległość niewiele zmienił – państwo Haszymidów pozostawało zależne od Brytyjczyków. Symbolem tej nierównorzędnej współpracy była osoba Johna Bagota Glubba. Ten brytyjski ofi cer stał się głównodowodzącym armii jordańskiej. Arabowie uważali go za przedstawiciela imperium, on sam jednak był przekonany, że służy interesom arabskim. Mimo, że rozwój Jordanii zależał od dotacji Londynu, władze w Ammanie zachowały swobodę decyzji. W 1956 r. król Husajn I usunął z kraju J.B. Glubba i zerwał sojusz z Wielką Brytanią. Dynastia haszymidzka odrzuciła związek z Londynem, by pozyskać nacjonalistów arabskich. Jednocześnie król Husajn I nawiązał ścisły, choć nieformalny, sojusz z USA. To Waszyngton zaczął dotować skarb Jordanii i jego siły zbrojne. Współpraca ta trwa do dziś. Jednocześnie Amman potrafi ł w pewnych momentach przeciwstawić się polityce USA. Tak było w 1967 r. i w latach 1990–1991 w czasie pierwszego konfl iktu USA z Irakiem, podczas którego Amman popierał Bagdad. Generalnie jednak reżim jordański utrzymywał opcję prozachodnią. Rząd haszymidzki dąży przede wszystkim do utrzymania stabilności ustroju monarchicznego. Współpraca z USA, a wcześniej z Brytyjczykami, nie wynika z założeń ideowych, lecz służy temu podstawowemu celowi. Jednocześnie współpraca z Anglosasami ma w przypadku Haszymidów długą tradycję i dobrze służy ich założeniom politycznym. ; The Middle East is known for its anti-western attitudes. Despite that, many Arab governments pursue pro-western policy. One of the countries that cooperates with Europe and the USA is Jordan. The specifi c political stance of the Hashemite monarchy has, however, strong historical reasons and results from untypical conditions of this state. One should mention that the very formation of Jordan resulted from the cooperation of British authorities with the Hashemite. The state was formed in 1921, at fi rst under the name of Transjordan, in result of political decisions of London. In 1921–1956 Amman cooperated with Great Britain. The fact that in 1946 Jordan gained independence did not change a lot. The country of the Hashemite remained dependant on the British. The symbol of this unequal cooperation was the person of John Bagot Glubb. This British officer became the commander of the Jordan army. The Arabs considered him as a representative of the empire, but he himself was convinced that he was serving the Arab interests. Despite the fact that the development of Jordan depended on donations of London, the authorities in Amman maintained freedom of decision making. In 1956 king Hussein removed J.B. Glubb from the country and broke the alliance with the Great Britain. The Hashemite dynasty rejected the relations with London so as to win over the Arab nationalists. At the same time king Hussein I established a strict but informal alliance with the USA. It was Washington that started to donate the state treasury and its armed forces. This cooperation has continued until today. Simultaneously, Amman was able at moments to oppose the policy of the USA. It happened in 1967 and in 1990–1991 during the fi rst confl ict of the USA with Iraq, when Amman supported Baghdad. Generally speaking, however, the Jordan regime maintained its prowestern option. The Hashemite government strives fi rst and foremost to maintain stability of the monarchy system. Cooperation with the USA, and previously with the British did not result, however, from ideological reasons, but serving the basic aim. At the same time, in case of the Hashemite, cooperation with Anglo-Saxons has long tradition and serves well their political assumptions.
Since early 1950s military coups were a frequent phenomenon in the Arab world. In consequence of that a lot of monarchies fell and they were replaced with republics. In fact, however, the politics became dominated by violence and the regimes quickly became oppressive dictatorships. The new governments made use of the pan-Arab ideology to legitimize their authority (which aimed at uniting Arabs from Morocco to Iraq). The small Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan became an important place of confrontation between the pan-Arab ideology and the monarchy, with its traditional legitimization of power. Since approximately 1948 until 1990s there was competition between parties and political movements opting for pan-Arabism or the court of the Hashemite. This resulted in severe political crises in 1956–1957, 1966 and 1991. The consequence of that was also the civil war of 1970. The Jordan monarchy succeeded in overcoming these crises and emerged victorious from the ideological struggle. The current monarchy maintained complete authority and recognition, while pan-Arabism underwent marginalization.
The Arabian Peninsula is the last place on Earth dominated by absolutist monarchies or systems that are, in fact, similar. There evolved a political system dominated by Saudi Arabia and in the shadow of that kingdom there are monarchies in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is a federation of several smaller monarchies. In the Cold War, all these states were forced to act jointly to assuage the threat posed by the post-Soviet Arab republics, such as Egypt. However, select common goals notwithstanding, the houses exercising the power in these states have for centuries been involved in conflicts and disputes. Even nowadays it is possible for these conflicts to revive. The article discusses two such disputes, the first one being the rivalry between the Saudis and the Hashemites. In 1990–1991, it resulted in the abrupt severance of all collaboration between Saudi Arabia and Jordan. A similar dispute concerns the House of Saud and the House of Al-Thani, the result of which was a severe political conflict of Riyadh with Qatar in 2014–2020. These two conflicts reflect sudden variability of relations between Arab monarchies: as such, they indicate hegemonic ambitions of Riyadh, but also strong resistance of some of the royal families against these claims, and the potentiality of destabilisation inherent in these relations.
The contemporary western political discourse is dominated by the conviction of the equality of cultures. This conviction is treated as a recent accomplishment of the leftist liberal trend of western societies. The following text indicates that this conviction may in certain cases be invalid. The person who shattered this concept was John Bagot Glubb. This British officer serving the British Empire in the Middle East since 1921 was the chief commander of the Jordan army in the period between 1939 and 1956. J. B. Glubb was a conservative member of an old noble family from the south of England and at the same time he was passionate about the Arabic culture – in particular about the life of the Bedouin. In contrast to many contemporary supporters of political correctness, he did not depreciate his own culture, but he showed genuine recognition of many features of the Arabic culture. He spent his whole life working to bring the West and the Arabs closer. Now one may accuse J.B. Glubb of numerous political mistakes, e.g., typically British paternalism, but nonetheless his life indicates that it was possible for an activist representing the conservative trend in the European culture to be a proponent of bringing cultures together.
