Realism & Idealism Approach

The approach of Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, May Allah have mercy on him, is a new experiment that combined two schools of international relations. The "realist school" and "the ideal school", the ideal school established by the American president, "Woodrow Wilson" after the First World War, which established fourteen principles of international peace, and focused on the importance of promoting the positivity that the policy maker, wants locally in his country and having a reflective image towards other countries. For example, local peace requires a trend towards international and global peace in relations with other countries, and it is an extension of the moral idealism advocated by the Enlightenment thinkers, as the international struggle tends a lot against the principles of reason, and depends on the positive intentions of states.

As for the realistic approach in the international relations, it centers on the selfish interests of the state, in order not to make this interest subject to other states. This requires the enforcement of interests by force. Therefore, this accelerates the process of stimulation towards building military power and alliances to reap special interests. Thus, each country seeks to maximize its own strength or to re-center it with balanced forces that support it regionally and internationally, and this is what makes countries with comparative powers superior to others. Hence, the principle of balance of forces in the bipolar system was established. As for the existence of the unipolar system, it will make the world different in its interests and will increase the regional and international warfare. The most important theorists of this school are U S political thinkers, such as Edward Hallett, Hallett Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr.

I believe that Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah has established a theory of work in international relations that stems from the fact that the State of Kuwait is a small state. The state’s population does not exceed 4 million people residing on its land. Its geographical borders do not exceed 17,818 km². It depends on one source of income, which is oil production, which constitutes 80% of the state's revenue. The theory also relies on the fact that the State of Kuwait is of a flat nature, and there are no natural features to protect the state. It has closed marine borders at the end of the Strait of Hormuz, and there are no water sources such as rivers or lakes. Sheikh Sabah also based his theory on international relations on the basis that Kuwait is located between three major countries. These countries (Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia) have a population density and a strategic nature that has a strong geopolitical weight enables them to resolve any conflict by occupying the State of Kuwait in case of any strategic disagreement, as happened in past centuries. Iraq, as known, occupied Kuwait in 1990. Therefore, adopting a political approach in international relations achieves self-interests while promoting international and regional understanding towards ideal principles in the midst of changes and transformations of an international and regional conflict. The approach of Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad's administration to international relations could aptly achieve this.

This blending of the realistic and the idealistic schools is the "realist-idealism" theory established by Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and which, if continued, Kuwait would remain an ideal center for international and regional relations. Kuwait will continue to pay attention to its interests, watch the regional and international reality carefully, and cautiously avoid the explosives of international politics without falling into its traps, and encourage the practice and application of ideal principles that achieve the interests of all.

On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, it was announced that the 15th ruler of Kuwait, Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, had passed away, at the age of 91.

Sheikh Sabah, may Allah have mercy on him, is considered one of the veteran politicians in the Arab region, and indeed in the world. He has witnessed nearly 6 decades of local, regional and international changes and transformations. He witnessed the start of the Kuwaiti renaissance in the sixties of the last century and the subsequent economic growth and political interaction. Sheikh Sabah witnessed the peak and the declining of the Arab nationalism era and its consequences for the region. It also witnessed the era of the conflict between the two worlds superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, the global transformations in politics, economics, cultural globalization, and other changes until the fall of the Soviet Union. Sheikh Sabah was at the center of events when Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990 and the liberation of Kuwait in February 1991.

The events that Sheikh Sabah witnessed are many, different and contradictory. Allah extended his life until he also witnessed a time of setbacks and Arab fragmentation; a time when Iran controlled Arab cities, and a time of transcendence. He also witnessed the shouts of normalization with the “Israeli” entity at a time of Arab weakness and disintegration. Kuwait during his reign has become de facto a country living explosive crises, at lines of conflict and contact with regional and international axes and powers in the region. He also witnessed the chaos and strife in the Arab region that exhausted the forces that aspire to build a unitary, developmental, economic or political integration project. Sheikh Sabah skillfully led his tiny country in the face of these powerful variables and actors that dominate the course of politics and the security and regional movement, facing great challenges.

Foreign Policy in the International Relations of Shaikh Sabah (2006-2010)

Since taking office in Kuwait, and given the long-standing experience in foreign relations since the early 1960s until he came to power (2006), his political experience in foreign relations has been shaped by a well-established working methodology and policies to deal with the new reality of a small country among three powerful regional states.

Historically, relations with these countries ranged between tension and calm, harmony and clash, recklessness and caution. All of this was happening according to the influencing international and regional strategic challenges and tracks. Moreover, different interests and points of tension, such as bias towards regional axes, or disputes about natural resources and wealth at the disputed sea and land borders, or mobilization in national and Arab issues, affected the relations.

Therefore, Sheikh Sabah's methodology was distinctive as a new school gained by experience and implemented through political practices and realities.

Apart from the legal opinions, political positions and moral dimensions, discussing the effects of the expected "normalization" between the Zionist entity and some of the Gulf States with a strategic vision will make the cost in favor of the Zionist Entity, and the inevitable loss for the Gulf States that will normalize its relations with this entity.

Before we go into the significant part, we must carefully examine the results of normalization with the countries that normalized relations with the Zionist entity. Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and some countries that have opened cooperation offices have not reaped any benefit. However, according to the assertion of the Palestinian political expert (professor of political science) Abdul Sattar Qassem: "Jordan has been devastated. There is no water, no land, no antiquities, no institutions, no major companies, after it was controlled by “Israel”, and large swathes of land in Jordan are sold to the Zionists in preparation for the alternative homeland. Even the monuments of Petra fall into the hands of the Zionists.” I say: The Egyptian economy is still weak, Egypt remains in poverty, and there is a threat to the waters of the Nile. As for the Palestinian Authority, its state has become an illusion, and the "Deal of the Century" awaits the success of "Trump" in the next elections.

Dr. Ibrahim Khaled Abdel Karim discusses, in his book “The Israeli Strategy towards the Arabian Peninsula” issued by the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research in 2000 CE, the objectives of the “Israeli” policy towards the Arabian Peninsula (which surrounds the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea and the Arabian Gulf). These countries have a distinguished geopolitical position as points of intersection of transport lines between Asia, Africa and Europe. They have a huge stock of underground wealth, they have the ability to influence the Arab reality, and their countries possess all the components of comprehensive development. These represent great opportunities to launch the peace process and invest in it, to ensure the protection of navigation in the Red Sea, and to provide opportunities for "Israel" to intervene in the Gulf affairs, in order to keep the existing imbalance in the armament in favor of Israel. ".

It is also expected that the trade balance between the Gulf States and the Zionist entity will be in favor of the Zionist entity. A report by the "Tony Blair Institute" (for International Cooperation) revealed that the value of trade exchange between "Israel" and the Gulf countries exceeds one billion dollars annually. It showed also that "Israel" exports to the Gulf more than it exports to Russia or Japan, and the exports are expected to increase several times. In the case of establishing formal relations, it could reach 25 billion dollars.

One of the most important strategic goals of the Zionist entity is to monitor and control the path of oil if it succeeds in signing normalization agreements with the Gulf States. The Gulf States seek to exit from the outlets of the Gulf and the Red Sea controlled by other countries to the estuaries and vast seas like the Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea, or the Mediterranean Sea. Hence, controlling the oil and gas routes will constitute, in the long run, an opportunity for the Zionist entity to control the oil and gas of the Gulf States.

Sources in the Zionist entity also spoke of a ready-made plan to build a railway line extending from "Israel" through Jordan to the Gulf States, in an attempt to attract Gulf oil to transport it through the port of Haifa, north of the Zionist entity, to European and American markets.

However, one of the most severe dangers that the Gulf States will face in case of normalization with the Zionist entity is that the Gulf States will be a battleground for the Zionist strategy with Iran in the region. It does not matter to the Zionists if the Gulf cities are burned in a war that serves their interests, or if the peoples of the region enter into a long-term war in favor of Zionist control.

Some Gulf States believe that Trump's project to create the so-called "Middle East Alliance" or "Middle East Protection Force" is in their favor, as command and control will be for the United States and "Israel". Some Gulf States and other countries in the region will form the geographical field and the work force that will implement the American and Zionist policies in the region. The goal is the Zionist national security at the expense of the Gulf and Arab national security. The Zionist entity has prepared future military plans to pay strikes to sites in Iran under this cover, and the reaction will of course be on the geography of the Gulf States.

The accession of the Gulf States to this alliance would be a fatal blow to the capabilities of the Gulf States to protect themselves and be totally subjugated to American and Zionist hegemony and Iranian reactions, and this represents one of the major losses to the normalization agreements with the Zionist entity.

Normalization will make the Zionist arms purchase chains, information and intelligence electronic products, and information security cooperation legitimate and legal in a timely manner, as Gulf security will be fully exposed, including the security of citizens and their information. This will put the Gulf peoples under complete control and submission to the Zionist goals, which means that a clash between peoples and their governments will be at stake. If we add the danger of changing the identity of the generations of the region, as some Gulf countries have begun to amend their laws, educational curricula, and scientific environment to adapt to the agreements of normalization; this would mean distorting the Arab and Islamic identity. Moreover, it would mean the elevation of the Zionist model over the identity of the Gulf peoples. After a decade of these agreements, the Zionist entity will demand everything related to history in the region, until the entity extends over all the geography of the Gulf States, as they were drawn by its founders.

So why are some Gulf countries sliding into agreements to normalize in spite of these disastrous strategic results?!