One former member of the prince’s household divulged that Charles was completely baffled by Bush and his stance in totally ignoring the advice of local leaders. ‘The prince could not understand the sense in America’s position,’ the source said, ‘which was a need to revisit the “crazy” de-Baathifican policy which had led to the exclusion of so many badly needed professional people throughout Iraqi society and turned so many people against the coalition.’
Charles, the source said, was particularly derogatory about Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice – the first black woman to hold that post – and the extent of what he deemed US ignorance of the Middle East. The prince couldn’t fathom why Ms Rice resisted all requests to visit the area. And some of her statements left him cold. ‘The people of the Middle East share the desire for freedom. We have an opportunity – and an obligation – to help them turn this desire into reality.’ But what does that actually mean and how on earth were they going to implement it? he would question.
In the prince’s view, the only way proper democracy will ever be achieved in Iraq and the West and stand any chance of winning the war on terror is by dealing with the ‘real toxin’ infecting the whole world: the Israel–Palestine question. He maintains that the West must also focus on education and resisting what he believes is a ‘terrible distortion’ of Islam and how it is perceived. Only then – when the wider world embraces the real Islam, combined with a serious collaborative effort to find a workable solution to the Israel–Palestine question – will, in the prince’s opinion, the rage that drives the war on terror start to wane. The lack of a realistic and satisfactory solution to the Israel–Palestine problem, in his view, is the fundamental reason for the hostility and all the ‘pent-up poison’ throughout the Islamic world.
‘I have heard him [Charles] say time and again, “Remove the poison and you remove the cause of so much of the terrorism,”’ the close source said. It is the prince’s core belief on the issue, the source added.
A regular and welcome visitor to the Gulf States today, the prince enjoys close ties with the ruling houses, who include some of the world’s last remaining absolute monarchies. On his visit to the UAE and Bahrain in November 2016, they afforded him great respect.
He is seen as a friend of some of the most powerful families on the planet. Among them are the Al Thanis of Qatar, the Husseins of Jordan and the Al Sauds of Saudi Arabia, all of whom have known the prince personally for many years and from whom he commands respect. Charles sees part of his role, whenever he visits the region, to make these rulers, so often ignored by the superpower USA, feel how valued they are to Britain and how important that long-standing relationship is.
Charles’s Arab sympathies have led him to be accused of being anti-Jewish and anti-American. Perhaps that is one reason why it was his son William, not he, who was chosen by the Queen and Foreign Office to make the historic first official royal visit to Israel and the occupied Palestinian West Bank in June 2017 while his father stayed at home. William would have consulted his father before making the visit, but surely Charles, not William, should have been the one to go?
Positive headlines flowed from the moment William touched down in the region. He was predictably dubbed ‘peacemaker’ in the headlines and there is little doubt he should be lauded for his deft diplomacy. Inevitably, he found himself being drawn into the complex politics of the region and asked to act as a peace envoy when Israel’s president asked him to take a message of hope to the Palestinian premier. British officials immediately stepped in and insisted that was not William’s role, but hoped his landmark visit to the Jewish state and the occupied Palestinian West Bank would act as a catalyst, highlighting the need to kickstart a long-stalled peace process in the world’s most intractable dispute. His Foreign Office-led move in embarking on the visit sparked a call for peace from Israel to Palestine’s president Mahmoud Abbas and placed the second in line to the throne into the role of statesman.
The Prince of Wales’s well-known public views on Islam and Arab friendships probably disqualified him from the role of peacemaker. Instead, while William was predictably winning plaudits from the travelling British press, Charles was left to ponder back home, carrying out official duties such as bestowing a knighthood on Barry Gibb, the only surviving member of the Bee Gees.
Was this a missed opportunity for Charles to be appreciated as a world statesman and the peacemaker he undoubtedly is? Or was it an example of a dissident prince not having an opportunity because his views on the issue were too widely known? Was he seen by the Foreign Office as too much of an Arabist to achieve the best results?
The prince has, after all, never shied away from espousing his views. He is careful what he says in the speeches he writes with his reams of edits. Privately, Charles disagrees with the bans imposed in France and Belgium on Muslim women covering their faces with burqas and niqabs, seeing it as ‘an infringement of human rights’, which criminalises women rather than challenging the custom. He has made it clear to ministers, too, that he no longer wishes to be used to promote British arms in Gulf States. But anti-Jewish? That is certainly not his intention or his position. However, to this day he strongly believes a solution can be achieved only by listening to and acting upon the advice of powerful Muslim figures.
Indeed, Charles came under fire in November 2017 when his views, revealed publicly in a letter he penned to his friend and mentor Laurens van der Post in 1986, came to light, saying that he blamed the ‘influx of foreign Jews’ for causing unrest in the Middle East and he believed America should ‘take on the Jewish lobby’.
The prince argued that the exodus of European Jews in the middle of the last century ‘helped to cause the great problems’ in the Middle East. ‘I now appreciate that Arabs and Jews were all a Semitic people originally and it is the influx of foreign, European Jews [especially from Poland, they say] which has helped to cause the great problems.’
He went on, ‘I know there are so many complex issues, but how can there ever be an end to terrorism unless the causes are eliminated? Surely some US president has to have the courage to stand up and take on the Jewish lobby in the US? I must be naïve, I suppose!’ The letter was found in a public archive and was written on 24 November 1986, following an official visit the then thirty-eight-year-old Charles had made to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar with his then wife, Princess Diana.
He wrote that the tour was ‘fascinating’ and that he had learned a lot about the Middle East and Arab outlook. He added in the letter, ‘Tried to read bit of Koran on way out and it gave me some insight into the way they [Arabs] think and operate. Don’t think they could understand us through reading Bible though!’ Clarence House rather lamely said in a statement that the opinions expressed in the 1986 letter were ‘not the Prince’s own views’ but instead reflected the opinions of those he met on his trip. It certainly did not read like that.
Charles’s lack of trust of America is a recurring theme. He is not only critical of their lack of a coherent Middle East policy, but deeply concerned by the US’s refusal to sign up to any international convention on climate change – a stance made even worse by the current incumbent in the White House, President Donald Trump. Charles is also ‘horrified’ by US agri-industrial activities – the appalling animal welfare and environmental consequences of the cattle-feed-lot system.
Charles believes the vast industrial-scale output of chemical-dependent and government-subsidised corn, which leads to economic surplus and is then turned into every conceivable form of fast food, is leading to an ever-growing health crisis in the USA. This is through obesity-related problems, not to mention that the rapidly increasing rates of diabetes make his ‘hair stand on end’, as does the huge lobbying power of the gigantic corporations and fast-food companies.
US administrations from George W. Bush to Donald Trump, Charles believes, have promulgated the industrialisation of nature throughout inherent unsustainable agricultural methods. ‘The prince,’ one o
f his circle told me, ‘finds the US society – which in his view contains a “worryingly large element” of born-again evangelical, fundamentalist Christians for whom the Old Testament seems more important than the New, and who take it literally – deeply worrying.’
Today he is determined to use his personal relationships with the Arab leaders in the Gulf to the greater good. I was one of the few journalists who accompanied the prince and the duchess on their tour of the Gulf States in November 2016, including, controversially, to Bahrain, which has been widely criticised for human-rights abuses. The visit undoubtedly left many influential figures, both in the region and at home, feeling better about Britain and its place in the world.
One area he will not be drawn into – in such a lucrative potential marketplace – is marketing weaponry. This is despite his previous forays into this area. In Jonathan Dimbleby’s 1994 documentary, Charles defended his appearance at the Dubai arms fair on the basis that he is boosting British trade, arguing without much conviction that the arms will likely be used as a deterrent, and if the UK doesn’t sell them someone else will. Since then he has had a complete volte-face, and heaven help the royal aide who suggests slipping in such an engagement these days!
The photographs from the tour – of a smiling Charles sword-dancing in Oman or shopping in a Bahraini souk with the Duchess of Cornwall – told some of the story, but certainly not all. For, as the world tried to come to terms with the fallout after Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, Charles had once again been in the heart of the Muslim world, sent on behalf of the Foreign Office to strengthen and reinforce Britain’s long-standing relationships with Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
I was taken aback not only by his workload but by the respect with which he is held in the region. His seven-day visit encompassed fifty engagements, four cities, five flights, numerous helicopter rides and serious talks with the most influential leaders and heads of state. It was seen as a requisite overseas visit by Charles, the Queen and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, from my ringside seat, its impact was palpable on so many levels.
It was exemplified by the fact that the visit could spark a Gulfwide expansion for the British company Bluewater Bio – success that would last long after the royals have flown home and the flags and bunting have been binned. Charles is not some cheap dealmaker with slick patter and list of new proposals, promoting Great Britain PLC like a supersalesman. That is not what he does and never has been. He clearly commands respect on the international stage. He is aware and mindful of the economic needs of a post-Brexit Britain. This was his fourth visit to the region in four years, at the request of the British government, promoting the UK’s partnership in the region in key areas such as religious tolerance, military cooperation, supporting women in leadership, creating youth opportunities, preserving cultural heritage and wildlife conservation.
In truth, it is the positive and unique longstanding relationship between our Royal Family – particularly Charles – and the royal families of this region that helps so many direct and indirect opportunities to flourish. During his visit, he opened a new welfare block at Britain’s naval base in Manama, Bahrain, met sailors on board HMS Middleton and visited a plant, built on land gifted by the government, using wastewater-treatment technology deployed by Bluewater Bio. The award-winning British firm is a global specialist in technologies for cost-efficient, environmentally friendly water and wastewater treatment.
For, if you looked only at the images printed in newspapers and published online, the subtle diplomatic, business and cultural benefits could easily be lost. There is a much bigger picture at play here – the trip was a serious and complex undertaking, crucial for Britain’s interests in the area.
Charles and Camilla’s trip to Bahrain was the final leg of a tour in which they both embraced subjects close to their hearts – and some unusual photocalls. Their first stop, Oman, produced headline-grabbing photographs of Prince Charles wielding a threefoot sword in a ceremonial dance held to welcome the couple to the country. The prince also saw at first hand the impact of conservation work on the tiny island of Bu Tinah, where he raced along in a dune buggy and took a boat tour to see important marine and coastal ecosystems.
Charles, a long-time champion of the need for environmental and business sustainability, also made a powerful address to business leaders in Dubai in which he warned there was a ‘very real risk’ of a climate-change disaster. He told them, ‘We are facing what I believe is perhaps the greatest challenge ever faced by our economy and society. I have been finding the struggle somewhat exhausting and frustrating over the past twenty-five to thirty years to overcome the deniers and sceptics. If we are honest, we know all too clearly that we can’t go on as we are.’
Ultimately, Charles believes these international visits work because over time they break down barriers that he fervently maintains must be broken down, for, in his view, unless we embrace each other, humanity is on a path to self-destruction, with misinterpretation and misunderstanding over religion and borders at its heart. As he eloquently put it, ‘The three great Abrahamic faiths [Judaism, Christianity and Islam] all come from the same root originally and it’s crazy to be persisting in this continuing misunderstanding.’
Chapter Thirteen
IRISH EYES
‘I hope and pray that during the rest of my life before I drop dead I might have a chance to visit as many of the counties as possible in this great country.’
HRH CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES, 11 MAY 2017, KILKENNY CASTLE, IRELAND
‘I declined a taste of the most fiendish little drink,’ Charles quipped with a mischievous smile and glint in his piercing blue eyes as he chatted openly to locals outside Kilkenny castle. He said he had ‘better be safe than sorry’ when offered a tonic ominously named Dragon’s Fire, made from garlic. Like the Queen, he has an aversion to garlic because they are always meeting new people and the smell makes it a no-no. The prince was on top form. He adores such visits to Ireland, the land, the culture, its people, its poetry and ancient, rich Celtic history. The more recent history of the island and the resolution of ‘the Troubles’ has long been a passionate subject of his, for personal as well as diplomatic reasons.
Being able to cross from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic is something the prince often dreamed of doing but in all honesty believed somebody of his royal rank would never be permitted to do in his lifetime. The speed of the peace process has meant that his cherished ambition has been realised.
Outside the castle on 11 May 2017, the royal couple spent time shaking hands with locals and toured a local farmers’ market. Thousands of well-wishers had lined the streets nearby to greet the prince and his wife with enthusiastic cheers. He is a popular figure in this part of Ireland and he was visibly touched by the genuine warmth of the welcome. Once inside the walls, Charles tried his hand at hurling with former Kilkenny All-Star Henry Shefflin on hand to advise. Both he and Kilkenny hurling manager Brian Cody demonstrated the art of the sport before passing over the hurley to the prince, who expressed relief ‘not to have disgraced myself entirely by missing the goal and hitting a member of the press corps between the eyes’.
At a function the previous evening, hosted by President Higgins in Áras an Uachtaráin, Charles said that it would be too much of a tragedy if all the hard work of reconciliation by the UK and Ireland were weakened in any way. He said he was fully aware of the challenges both countries faced.
‘Our joint efforts have become a beacon for the rest of the world and I feel it is important to keep bothering you with my visits to demonstrate the United Kingdom’s commitment to the peace.’ He used a phrase in the Irish language, Gaeilge, in both his opening and closing remarks as a mark of respect.
Both Charles and the Queen are consumed by the Irish political situation and the peace process and are known to talk about it in minute detail, privately, for hours. The Queen is known to have an almost obsessive interest in the subj
ect. ‘She is a bit of an anorak about Ireland,’ one former member of the household said. ‘She has found many a government minister wanting when she has challenged them on a particular aspect of the peace process or Irish history.’ Charles is an avid reader on the subject, too, and is proud of what his mother has achieved in the delicate arena of Ireland. Indeed, he believes that the Queen’s historic visit to the Republic of Ireland in April 2011 was the crowning moment of her reign, her lasting achievement. Whenever he has been asked directly what he believes the Queen’s greatest legacy will be, he does not say, as some might expect, her role as Head of the Commonwealth but, unequivocally, ‘Ireland.’
For, in Charles’s opinion, his mother’s historic state visit to the Republic of Ireland between 17 and 20 May 2011 set the seal on the full normalisation of Anglo-Irish relations, and the warm response to her speech at a state banquet at Dublin Castle showed that she had pulled off one of the most successful state visits of her reign. Even Gerry Adams, the face and voice of the political wing of the IRA, Sinn Féin, lauded the Queen for her ‘genuine’ expression of sympathy for victims of Ireland’s troubled past. Praising a British monarch is something Adams probably never thought he would ever do, but those four days in spring 2011 were of immense symbolic significance in showing that Britain and Ireland were, as she said in her speech, ‘more than just neighbours’.
Charles at Seventy Page 23