Our aid or our political standing?
When a country’s aid shifts from a silent humanitarian act to a repetitive refrain in every crisis, it risks losing part of its true meaning, gradually transforming into a “defensive argument” rather than remaining a “fixed value.” Nations are not measured by what they say about themselves, but by what becomes entrenched in others’ consciousness without their having to speak. Indeed, Kuwait has been and will remain one of the world’s largest supporters of humanitarian work, a fact no one disputes. But the danger begins when we automatically link this generosity to any hostile stance, as if telling the world: “How can you wrong us when we have done so much for you?” This linkage, despite its noble intentions, does not change others’ behavior; rather, it weakens our core message, because anyone accustomed to constantly reminding others of their favors inadvertently places themselves in the position of someone expecting a return. A question of utmost importance: Do we want Kuwait’s humanitarian history to be respected, or do we want it to be used as a political shield? As a state, Kuwait must not turn its humanitarian achievements into a “defensive file,” but rather into a “fixed moral asset” that is invoked only for pride, not for advocacy. Our real challenge today is not to remind the world of the assistance, aid, and relief we have provided, but to redefine our political presence. We must be present in a way that does not require us to remind everyone of all our aid, but rather to have Kuwait present through its strength, weight, prestige, and decisions. Since the establishment of its foreign policy, Kuwait has chosen to be a humanitarian state, extending a hand to every needy person, aiding the afflicted, contributing to reconstruction, and supporting peoples in their crises, regardless of ethnicity, sect, or politics. This is an honor we should never regret. In return, we must recognize the reality of politics as it is, not as we wish it to be. States, organizations, and political movements build their positions based on interest calculations, alliances, and priorities, not on aid. Therefore, it is a mistake to expect humanitarian aid to translate into political insurance; financial and relief support is not a guarantee that will prevent insult, threat, or neglect. Kuwait has stood with many peoples in their trials, provided billions of dollars in relief and development, and embraced Arab and Islamic causes with sincerity, foremost among them the Palestinian cause, which it has never abandoned, politically, humanely, media-wise, or popularly. Some statements or positions by certain Palestinian leaders or organizations do not reflect any appreciation for this history; rather, they may focus on other actors they perceive as closer to their military or political calculations. These are the facts of politics, however painful. The problem here is not that they did not thank Kuwait, but that some of us still believe humanitarian work should automatically translate into supportive political stances, while experience often proves the opposite, especially in today’s world dominated by political interests. Has the time not come to redefine our success in Kuwait, not by how many mention its name in speeches, nor in lists of thanks, nor in statements of gratitude? Its true success is that it fulfilled its moral and humanitarian duty and preserved its international reputation without compromising its principles. Let us begin by asking ourselves: Do we build our policies and expectations based on what we hope from others, or on what Kuwait’s interest dictates, first and foremost? Iqbal Al-Ahmad
