The axes on which the theory of (realism - idealism) is based: -

First: Estimating the National Security Authority of the State of Kuwait:

The national security interest of the State of Kuwait is appreciated by analyzing this interest in establishing a cordon of Kuwait’s sphere. Establishing national sovereignty and multiple defense and security agreements of understanding. Preserving the unity and solidity of social power in the state, and not opening the way for internal parties to interfere in the paths of international relations. Putting the assessment of the national security interest in the hands of one center, which is the authority of the Emir through the Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry and its political tools.

Second: To be shielded by the internationally recognized forces in a balanced way without resorting to bilateral security agreements with any regional state:

Kuwait has signed more than one agreement of understanding, cooperation and joint defense with the five major permanent members of the Security Council (the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China), since the war of liberation of Kuwait in 1991 until today. Moreover, Kuwait is renewing and re-establishing some of these agreements according to the nature of the shifts and changes. These agreements have contributed to protecting and eliminating the lust of regional conflict to pressure the State of Kuwait up till now.

Third: Adopting balanced neutrality in the regional and the international conflicts and avoiding regional axes:

During the reign of Sheikh Sabah, may Allah have mercy on him; the State of Kuwait committed itself to its international, regional, and institutional obligations without inclining to enter the fray of conflict in the Gulf, Yemen, Iraq or Syria. Although these are areas that require Kuwait to have a national role in them, according to the policy of "realism - idealism", it has not entered any axis of the conflict except in accordance with agreed upon legal agreements; Such as the joint defense agreement for the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council and within the limits required by that agreement.

The realistic interest was to save Kuwait from any interference by regional parties to the conflict. At the same time, this ideal policy aimed at improving the state of peace in the region, reducing losses, and preserving the unity and cohesion of the region in the face of Zionist, Iranian and international arrogance.

Therefore, Kuwait did not participate in the "MOC" room that was established by regional countries under the auspices of the major countries (except for Russia and China) in the Syrian conflict, and at the same time it stood with the Syrian people in their ordeal and endured humanitarian relief in this conflict.

In the midst of the conflict in Egypt between the military coup and the popular forces entrenched in the constitution in 2013, Kuwait stood with the stability of Egypt as it stood with the revolutionary constitutional Egypt in 2011. In Yemen, it stood with the Yemeni legitimacy and its agreements with the coalition countries without exaggeration, and fostered reconciliation between the Yemeni parties. That is why the "realistic - ideal" policy made Kuwait a unique model in dealing with international and regional conflict.

Fourth: Non-interference in the internal affairs of states and non-support of any of the conflicting parties:

The method of the Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad School, may Allah have mercy on him, decided not to interfere in the internal affairs of the conflicting parties, as it is an internal matter, in which regional and international systems should not interfere. Thus, Kuwait has not interfered in the Iraqi conflict among different militias and their supporters. Kuwait rejected Turkish intervention in the “Olive Branch” operation, and it refused to interfere in Sudanese affairs during and after the Revolution of Change. Kuwait has not contributed any role in developing the internal conflict between any opposition and government in its regional or Arab sphere.

Fifth: Recognition of constitutional and international legitimacy:

When the Arab world was divided during the Arab Spring, and the Arab geography has become a scene of regional and international conflict, Kuwait has always stood with the constitutional and international legitimacy that was approved by the peoples and recognized by international legitimacy. Kuwait did not slip, like some Gulf and Arab countries, and intervene to change that legitimacy or breach the principle of sovereignty, as some countries did in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Sudan and Iraq. This policy reduced the political and financial costs paid by the State of Kuwait, and did not exhaust its economy in wars it had not established or planned. Kuwait has remained a country that enjoys the respect of all local parties, and everyone accepts its mediation and initiatives because it has no interest in tipping the balance in favor of the other.

Sixth: Rejecting violent conflict and calling for understanding and peace:

Kuwait, according to its "realistic - idealistic" policy, contributed to reducing conflict and calling for understanding and national peace in the Arab region, either by supporting international resolutions on relevant issues in the United Nations, especially at the time of its presidency of the Security Council, or through the mediation in which it participated and the initiatives that it called for. Likewise, by inviting the parties without announcing this, or with the announced initiatives, as happened in April 2016 between the Yemeni parties under the auspices of the United Nations and Kuwait's hosting of them as a neutral mediator.

Seventh: Encouraging adherence to the law and international decisions, not violating rights, and establishing justice:

Kuwait affirmed, in accordance with the policies of the late Emir, may Allah have mercy on him, the implementation of international decisions on Palestinian rights in all international stations. Kuwait presidency of the Security Council in 2019 had a prominent role in standing with the just issues of the Arab region and the Palestinian case and the just cases of the Islamic world (such as the issues of the Kashmiri and the Rohingya people).

Its rejection of the principle of normalization with the Zionist entity is considered a commitment to an idealistic and realistic policy at the same time, and the rigidity of the late Emir’s position, may Allah have mercy on him, is evident in more than one position in this regard.

Eighth: Recognizing the geostrategic dimension of the State of Kuwait and aligning with it at points of contact and conflict:

Kuwait, which has an open nature, has maintained normal and cautious relations with the three countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq), but upon the strategic disagreement over the strategic priorities and interests of the region, it automatically aligns itself with its integrated Gulf dimension, both with regard to illegal and legal interventions as in Yemen. With regard to the Iranian attacks on the Gulf States, or the movements of some internal parties linked to sectarian lines to Iran or Iraq, they are bound by their constitution in any security agreement, especially the Gulf Security Agreement, and its binding constitution for foreign policy, which is bound by its controls and rights.

The relationship with Egypt is characterized by an Arab national strategic dimension that has nothing to do with the nature of the ruling regime, but rather the nature of the strategic weight that Egypt represents for the balance of the Arab conflict with the Zionist entity and the Iranian influence in the region. In light of this policy, Kuwait stood with the results of the 2012 elections in the Egyptian state, and it stood with the results of the military coup regime as well, as popular movements and legal practices covered it. At the same time, Kuwait did not respond to calls for stigmatizing the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. This is not part of its policy towards any local party in the conflict in Egypt, and the statement issued by the new Brotherhood’s deputy guide, Ibrahim Munir, had a prominent praise for the late Emir’s role in the Arab region, because Kuwait did not join the axis of countries that stood against the results of the constitutional revolutions.

Similarly, in its dealings with the new (sectarian) Iraq, Kuwait did not favor the Sunni doctrine, but rather dealt with the Iraqi state with its existing constitutional entity, and also contributed to strengthening the involvement of Arab Sunnis in the rule of Iraq and supporting the Sunni region after the events of "ISIS" as primarily humanitarian support.

Ninth: Constancy and solidity in determining Kuwaiti sovereignty:

With its "realistic - idealistic" policy, Kuwait settled the issue of sovereignty regarding the demarcation of the southern land and sea borders in the neutral zone with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in December 2019, and ended a century of border dispute with Saudi Arabia.

Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad's calm, solid and long-winded policy had a decisive effect in launching the border agreement and resolving the dispute over the Dorra field with Iran, and the demarcation of the Iraqi borders was carried out under the supervision of Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah, may God have mercy on him. Thus, the sovereignty of Kuwait over its lands was settled. All of this happened thanks to the realistic-idealistic policy of Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad practiced during his long experiences in international relations.

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?!