After a keynote speech at the European Policy Centre in Brussels on the "coexistence of civilizations" Prince Hassan Bin Tallal, crown prince of Jordan in the final days of the late King Hussein, spoke to Today's Zaman. Answering questions ranging from the situation in Iraq to his grandfather's revolt against Ottoman rule, Prince Hassan made it clear that the idea of breaking Iraq into pieces, as is circulating in some US and Israeli circles, would be a fatal mistake. The Jordanian prince warned that a possible break-up would play into the hands of Israeli "extremists," making Israel the dominant minority in a region of minorities.

Stressing that he was as concerned as the neighboring countries, i.e., Turkey, Iran and Syria, about the prospects of a possible break-up, Prince Hassan said that the US realized its mistakes but that it was "too late."

Once dubbed the next king of Jordan, Prince Hassan is now one of the leading intellectuals and activists of the Islamic world. While critical of the US for not being prepared to "win the peace," Prince Hassan was also very tough on the late Saddam Hussein. He argued that Saddam had started his own demise by attacking Iran back in 1980. On the US, Prince Hassan stated he thought their biggest mistake during and after the invasion of Iraq was their lack of cultural affinity. By this he implied that the US did not really understand the true currents and cross currents of the country; a mistake that has now proved fatal not only for Americans but for Iraqis as well.

When asked about the possibility of a Shiite belt in the Middle East stretching from Teheran to Beirut and including a large portion of the Persian Gulf, Prince Hassan did not seem too worried, noting that the current president of Iraq is a Kurd.

On the controversial topic of Turkey's right to active pursuit in northern Iraq of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists, Prince Hassan lent his support to Turkey, stressing that if it felt its interests threatened, it was entitled to go after the terrorists. Underlining his opposition to an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq, Prince Hassan stated he regretted that the reform process of the Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat era was derailed by World War I. Being the grandson of the late Ottoman statesman Şakir Paşa, Prince Hassan can understand Turkish but is hesitant to speak it. He said his mother was born in Emirgan, İstanbul.

The idea of splitting Iraq into three -- Kurdish, Sunni and Shia -- has been circulating for a while in the US and Israel. Do you think it could be a remedy?

The definition of Sunni and Shia is an erroneous one, because after all many of the Kurds are Sunni and if we add Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds, then we are talking a majority in numerical terms.

Secondly, the sectarian realties of Iraq were contained between 1925 and 1958 by the constitution of the monarchy that was established by my late great uncle King Faisal I on the basis of power-sharing arrangements whereby the central budget was shared in terms of returns equitably by all Iraqis. I want to remind you that since the invasion of Iraq … returns in oil have not been financed in an equitable manner as to be shared by all Iraqis.

Much of the fight continues on the basis of serious mistakes recognized today, but too late, by the Americans, i.e., dissolving the armed forces providing the resistance with such a large number of well-trained fighters, and indeed not securing the weapons stocks, arms arsenals or the opening the Iranian border and then closing it after Iranians had clearly taken advantage of this open border policy. I think as far as the destruction of Iraq, the breakup of the country is not preordained and I don't think it should be self-realizing.

At this point I want to cite the Clean Break paper of 1996 attributed to the conservatives in the US. It seems to me that the concept of pan-Arabism, pan-Islamism, supra-national identity was actually taken to pieces by this paper, arguing somehow that fragmentation was taking place in that part of the world, so let us take full advantage of this. Muslims and Arabs do not need enemies as they are doing an excellent job of destroying each other. Of course this plays into the hands of Israeli extremists that believe Israel should emerge as the dominating minority in a region of minorities or a mosaic of minorities.

I understand you are vehemently against the idea?

I think it would be a disaster; fragmentation of Iraq, fragmentation of Sudan, fragmentation of Lebanon would be the beginning of the end and we are already on a runaway train.

What you mean by the 'end'?

End of the Westphalian system, the end of the Middle Eastern community of states, the beginning of a Balkanization that could lead, in the words of the former Iraqi Defense Minister Ali Allawi, to a new 100 years of war.

You share the concerns of Turkey, Iran and Syria then?

Deeply so.

What do you think about Turkey's warnings that it could go into northern Iraq to chase Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists?

Unfortunately the right of hot pursuit seems to be exercised by different regimes and governments, in different parts of the earth and at different times. I don't see why Turkey should be any different if it feels that its national interest is jeopardized by the PKK. After all, the Iranian equivalent of the PKK entered Iranian territory and was fiercely routed out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. There were also confrontations with Syria.

I think this idea of a Kurdish identity developing into a Kurdish autonomy is already stabilizing within the Kurdish region in Iraq. I do not see why it should be taken any further if it has the potential to a bloody confrontation with its neighbors. Cultural self-determination was recognized by the Sevres Treaty in 1920, but I would hope a time comes when cultural self-determination could be discussed at a supra-national level in the Middle East between states but not at the expense of potentially the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Can I conclude that Jordan is equally concerned about an independent Kurdish state?

I cannot speak for the government; I am not an official of Jordan. My view is that World War I prevented the successful implementation of the Millet (National) System and Tanzimat, which was the reform program of the Ottoman Empire. What I do believe is that a commonwealth of Middle Eastern or West Asian people should be based on pluralism and respect for the other, not aggression and the violation of others' rights.

What do you think were the biggest mistakes of the Americans in Iraq?

I do not want to be judgmental about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. After all this was almost inevitable. The first signs of the beginning of end were when Saddam's presidency decided to take on violent confrontation with Iranians. I never understood what the strategic benefit of that confrontation was. I might have understood that there was some strategic thinking. But that war was the beginning of an attrition that continues today of Muslims killing each other. The killing between Shiites and Sunnis is an extension of that.

Maybe the biggest mistake was the reported conversation between Mr. [Paul] Bremer and Ayatollah Sistani. Of course the two did not meet, but Bremer told Sistani through his intermediary, "This is your opportunity to rise and get power from the Sunnis which was taken from you for 14 centuries." Sistani replies through his intermediary: "You are an American and I am a Persian born in Sistan. Who are we to decide the future of the Iraqi people?"

The biggest mistake, if I may, was the lack of cultural affinity and the absence of a plan to win the peace. If you recall the Marshall Plan, it was envisaged in 1941 before the end of World War II. So it does not come as a surprise to me that the US defeated Iraq, but what comes as a surprise is the fact that nobody thought of the consequences of the war and the steps required to stabilize not only Iraq but also all the region as a whole.

What should be done right now?

Breaking the cycle of violence is absolutely essential. Reconciliation can be a remedy if given a chance; it worked in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor. In the case of Iraq, I held six rounds of talks with religious leaders; Sunni, Shiite, Christian. In all of them I found the parties most grateful for the opportunity to exchange views. Two bishops told me, "If for only one thing, we want to thank you for 30 years we have not spoken each other."

Bremer was right on one point though: The Ottomans never entrusted the Shiites with authority. Are you concerned that historical pattern is now being changed with the looming possibility of a rise in Shia Islam all over the Arab world?

As far as Iranian nationalism is concerned it should be taken out of the Shia context. After all Shiites started in an Arab context. I am always asked if I am a descendant of the line of Imam Ali, why I am not a Shiite. I reply, "How can the ehl-i beyt itself be a Shiite?"