Small States in the Shadow of the International Alliances Kuwait as a Case Study

The international alliances, with their military, political, security and economic types, are seeking to achieve the goals of the concerned parties. Therefore, small states more than other states in dire need to these alliances where they seek through them to achieve their security, stability and protecting their existence, because of composition and limited capacity. However, these international alliances has many cost. The cleared ones and the undeclared cost, which is dependency for great countries allied with them. These alliances forcing small states to be satellite states, living in the shadow of the power countries to achieve their goals. This study seeks to know the nature of the relationship between the small and the great countries in their alliances by following the political behavior of them under these alliances. The state of Kuwait will be the case study. It’s a typical case of small state which has alliances with great powers.


Introduction
Small states seek, by virtue of its composition and limited Capacity, to the international alliances in order to fill the gap from which they suffer.The international alliances, with their various military, political, security and economic types, are seeking to achieve the goals of the concerned parties.Therefore, small states in dire need to these alliances where they seek through them, to achieve their security and stability and protecting their existence.However, it does not mean that this alliances do not have conditions and obligations for the small state which it may incompatible with its foreign policy.Thus, we find that alliances are working on the security disability compensation of the small states with the security policies based on neutrality by joining alliances.Despite the importance of this option for small states, its effectiveness depends on two factors: first, the importance of the international party that small states resort with in the alliance.This importance appears through its ranking among the world powers.Second, the nature of the alliance, if it was based on a clear treaty, the security benefits will be great (Keshk, 2012).
Several studies emphasized the importance of alliances for small countries, including determinants of war project study, which stressed the importance of alliances for small states.Project data, covered the period from 1816 until 1970, showed that the small states are not belonging to the alliances was targeted externally more than other countries.It is important that small countries allied with a great country outside the region to which it belongs, otherwise they will fall under the control of great powers surrounding it (Jensen, 2015).
For that, this study based its analysis on the relationship between small states and international alliances, on the concept of small states in terms of definition and display the impact of the foreign policy of small states on its international alliances through the analysis of the tangles and the interference between the foreign policy of small states and the obligations of the international alliances.
Kuwait represents a typical case of this study, it is a small country exposed continuously to threats because of its strategic geographical location in the center of the Middle East, as well as due to the possession of large quantities of oil, which makes it forced to alliances with great countries in order to protect it.in the international alliances.

First: Kuwait
Kuwait is one of the smallest Arab Asian countries, which falls within the group of countries known as the Arab Gulf states.It characterized by a number of features, which are:

Location
Kuwait is locates on the northwestern side of the Arab Gulf.The border of Kuwait from East across the territorial waters is the Islamic Republic of Iran.The border of Kuwait from south and southwest is Saudi Arabia.And from the north and northwest is Iraq.By virtue of its location, it is the natural outlet of the North-East of the Arabian Peninsula.The total area of Kuwait is approximately (17.818 square kilometers).The surface of the state of Kuwait consists mostly of sandy plains and descends gradually from West to East, and there are a number of Islands.

The Location of Kuwait Characterized by Four Things
First, the small size of the country compared with neighboring countries in terms of the relative relationship between the size of Kuwait and the sizes of countries surrounding it.Second, the direct neighboring with these countries on one hand, as well as it is surrounded by these countries from almost all aspects on the other hand.Third, the difference of the neighboring countries from Kuwait and from each other concerning the political aspects, and in social and economic aspects too.Fourth, The instability of the region as a whole, both in the comprehensive regional sense (Middle East) or the Sub-regional sense (Arab Gulf).

Position or Status
It means the state-owned fortunes.Kuwait is rich in oil.It is one of the richest countries in the world in oil reserves with absolute measurement and it is the richest with relative measurement (population and resources).Some believe that this matter is the source of power for Kuwait, but the opposite is true.because that wealth tempting others to possess it because it is based in one type, and It is one of the natural resources that it is easy to control it directly (contrary to agricultural lands or water), meaning that looting this wealth is available easily to those who dominate it.

Area and Population
They are also a weak point for Kuwait, so that the small size makes it easy to control it.It is means also that the occupation of only a part of this area hits the independence of the country, as well as the limited number of population and the diversity of demographics (Al mezien, 2013).
Accordingly the size of the state of Kuwait and its wealth made it the focus of attention of the major regional countries surrounding it.Therefore, Kuwait entry into international alliances is inevitable to protect its security and existence.

Second: Small States
There is a discrimination between states since the concept of the nation-state has emerged after the Westphalia agreement in 1684.This process has gone through a number of stages so that classification became a transformed matter controlled by political, economic, military and technological criteria and emerged what is known as the small, medium, strong and great states.
The concept state has been dealt with two perspectives: First, the legal approach which equals between countries in terms of sovereignty, right to survive and not allow others to interfere in its internal affairs.Second, the realistic approach suggests that states vary in terms of capabilities available to it, and then these capabilities offer an opportunity to countries to influence the other parties (Al hadrami, 2013).
The legal approach is the official and applied approach in governmental organizations such as the United Nation and others organizations in the case of only the vote of states.However, the realistic approach is considered in all external relations between states.This approach make a distinction between countries in many aspects, the most important is the size of the state.This is what motivates us to focus on the issue of the definition of small-sized countries.

The Case for Small State Studies
There are many justification for Small States Studies, four of which are especially relevant in the IR context.The first and most obvious justification is that the great majority of the world's two hundred plus legally sovereign states are small.The second justification involves questioning an (implicit or explicit) assumption that is still basic to a lot of thinking in IR, namely that states having powerful capabilities will inevitably use them and so are the states most worth examining.This assumption can only be made for an international system where the states concerned do not feel bound by responsibility or international norms of appropriate behavior such as, for instance, restrictions on the use of force.The third justification relates to the fact that, from an institutionalist point of view, the great powers are also the powers in charge of the international system, and they may shape international institutions accordingly.The status of great powerhood means that other actors will take what they consider to be the great power's interests into account, even in its absence.But whilst on the one hand large state may have institutional privileges, such as a permanent seat in the UN Security Council or extra voting power in the Bretton Woods institutions, on the other hand, international institutions make resource-based power effects more visible because norms and rules are formalized and thus require justifications.This is the key reason why small states highly value international law and international regimes.The fourth justification is that institutions and policies may be investigated not only as the outcome of great-power bargains, but also in terms of the actor's relations.The available case studies in IR heavily concentrate on great powers, and thus look at only one particular sample of states.By taking small states more fully into account, international relations would profit empirically by gaining new data (Neumann, 2004).

The Definition of Small States
Researchers was interested in small countries since the beginning of the rapid emergence of these countries after the World War II.The definitions of small states increased after interesting in them.There are many definitions which relates to the thought of the writers and the case that they are studying.However, we find that best definitions related to this study is the definition of the United Nations where the criteria to determine the concept of these countries are more comprehensive.According to the United Nations, small states are very small entities in the area, population, and economic and human resources, which appear as independent states (Keshk, 2012).

International Standards for Classification of Small States
The international standard in the classification of small states are economic, national, behavioral and environmental standard.They are taken individually sometimes and mutually other times.On the contrary, there is another group.It adapted the standards of the self-consciousness and international weight.Some also rely on the geographical site of the state being an important component in the context resources, opportunities and the margins of the political movement resulting from that.Along with standards associated with the geographical location, including natural resources and maritime borders.Mahan and other geography scientists asserted this matter.Also, studies did not ignore the standards of security and maintain survival that small states seek to realize both them despite effort in the management of this process (Al hadrami, 2013).
These standards can be considered as a general standard.However, it is not an accurate measure of all small countries, because what apply to one of the small countries may not apply to others ones.That is exactly what has been deduced on our application of these international standards on the state of Kuwait.These standards are (Economic criteria, International impact criteria and the security criteria).
(1) Economic criteria Economic factors, its availability or scarcity play important roles in categorizing states because these factors reflect opportunities or pose restrictions for the decision of the state.The matter that represents the effective performance shaping regional or global centers.Hence, the size of these countries shaped by this standard is directly proportional with its economic ability.
On the basis of the economic capacity, most of the third world countries are classified as small countries because of the weakness of its financial resources and production, and thus the lack of technological capabilities.This matter forced these countries to rely on the outside world to protect its security and to meet its requirements raised by popular pressure in the fields of employment, health, and social welfare, which make them governed by restrictions beyond its ability to formulate their decisions, and marginalize their ability to move freely without the aid coming from outside their border, financially and scientifically (Al hadrami, 2013).This standard is one of the most important criteria that not apply to Kuwait.However, on the contrary of that, Kuwait suffers from the financial abundance which shaped with its small size a big problem.This problem is the greed of others to capture this state and its economic resources represented in its possession of huge quantities of oil.Therefore, we find that the financial abundance is a negative feature of Kuwait in light of its small size and inability to protect itself with its own potential, this matter is clearly evident during the Iraqi invasion to Kuwait.However, that does not mean the economic abundance represents only a negative side.It is one of the causes of domestic stability.The abundance of the natural resources can create a case of economic prosperity that can help in achieving the political stability.It might be possible to say that stability enjoyed by the Arab oil countries attributes in part to the huge oil revenues that prepare the ruling elites to response to the needs of the governed and the implementation of social welfare programs (health, education, social security, housing and transportation) (Al menoufi, 1987).
(2) International impact criteria: Small states has not been able to get out of the restrictions of the limited role in making its foreign policy due to the weakness of the competence factors in terms of population, the natural resources, or economic and military capabilities.Therefore, these sought to compensate this matter by suggesting a foreign policy depended on the economic blocks or resort to the regional assemblies (Al hadrami, 2013).This standard applies to most of the small states, including Kuwait.It has no a strong or direct international influence alone.However, we can exclude Kuwait and number of rich countries, especially those countries that have oil, because these small countries may have an international impact although not a direct impact but because of the need from the great countries to their fortunes.Which mean that any danger in these small countries is a threat to the great countries.Thus, we final that the impact of these countries not due to countries themselves, but due to the need of the great powers.
(3) The security criteria: It is noted that small states, particularly if they have fortunes, are threatened in their security.To overcome this problem, they often join powerful alliances, or they demand an international protecting from one of the major powers.Therefore, small states do not have a strategic luxury concerning the security side, also they do not have a virtual luxury that the other parties have well intentions toward them, or they can deal with the lowest ferocity probability.
Accordingly, we find that they often suffer from a node of dwarf sizes, which show everything larger than its normal and realistic size.Furthermore, we see that the small state tends in its estimations to the expectation of risks that becomes eventually an accustomed frame for thinking, and turn the theory of security to the theory of insecurity.Also, the state begins to draw its strategies on the basis that if the security considerations conflicted with the peace considerations with its neighbors, the security considerations would be an apriority.
As mentioned, the security problem of the small state is it always unable to defend itself according to its own capabilities or the traditional defense strategies being pursued.This due to the wide structural imbalances between it and its opposing states, or those states targeting or blackmailing it.Also the small state may go to engage in the regional and international alliances.This option is very attractive.It appears ideal ostensibly, but in essence it threatens the sovereignty of the state or draw it into conflicts that it is not a part of them, however, the alliance obligations impose on it to engage in some military operations that might harm it (Al hadrami, 2013).This standard applies to Kuwait completely.It is a small state, it owns big fortunes, and it is surrounded by regional powers threatening its security.Therefore, we find that the direction toward alliance with the great powers is the most perfect option.Despite negatives that come with these alliances, they remain better than staying alone without the protection of major countries.

Features of Foreign Policy of Small Countries
The foreign policy of small states enjoys particular features that distinguish it from other countries.The foreign policy means the program of overt action chosen by the official representatives among a set of available alternative programs in order to achieve specific goals in the external environment (Selim, 2013).Thus, foreign policy controls the way which the foreign relations have been occurred and the mechanisms of entering in international alliances have been organized.So, it is important to show foreign policy features characterized by small states.It should be noted that these features are common and may not apply to all small countries.However, they apply generally to most small states.
The features of small countries is almost limited to the following: 1. Inability of small countries to compete with great countries concerning engaging in the international affairs.This attributed to the limited capabilities in terms of information and the ability to impose its diplomacy on the global events.It is due to the small size of its diplomatic representation, whether the number of embassies or diplomats who run them, the weakness of its military capabilities, and they not have financial resources, or techniques which enables them to be an active participation in the international context.This matter forces small states to choose limited areas or few paralleled states in force to share with them to follow the appropriate foreign policies.
2. Tendency towards preference the tools and economic and developmental considerations more than the political considerations in its international relations.
3. Forcing to adopt low-cost mechanisms such as resorting to the use of international organizations and dependence on them even these small countries can strengthen their capacity and increase their influence because these organizations call for maximizing the standards of international legitimacy.
4. The political systems in small states characterizes by falling under the will of the political leadership in the light of the absence of the effective democratic institutions.This matter led to the personalization of foreign policy decisions that often qualified to lead the state, especially in the international affairs 13 .(Selim, 2013) These features reflect significantly on the foreign policy of Kuwait except for the financial scarcity, where Kuwait enjoys financial abundance.However, the other features, such as its inability to compete the great countries and its preference of using the economic means instead of military ones, represent an actual expression about foreign Kuwait policy.

Third: Alliances
Alliances play a central role in international relations because they are seen to be an integral part of statecraft.Alliances are formed between two or more countries to counter a common adversary.They have been an important research focus in the theory of international relation.This in understandable because one of the central foreign policy debates in every country centers on the issue of which nation to ally with and for how long.
Strong and weak nations alike feel the need to form alliances.Weak state enter into alliance when they need protection against strong state, they enter into alliances to defend themselves.Strong states enter into alliances to counter other strong state, they enter into alliance to maintain balance of power.State expect their allies to help militarily and diplomatically during the time of conflict.The commitment entered into by the alliance may be formal or informal, there may or may not be treaties between them (Dwivedi, 2012).

Alliances Definition
Alliances had major interest from many researchers, for that there is a lot of definitions for alliance.There are definitions focused on a specific side of the phenomenon.Indeed.Some described interactions and specific relations as alliances, and such that the so-called implicit alliance to describe the evolving relationship between two countries without the contractual side (Badras, 1998).
This diversity confirms the great attention given to the concept of alliance by thinkers of international relations.And as a part of that interest, definitions given for this concept was numerous.We can offer some of these definitions.
Osgood see that alliance is a formal agreement under which a set of countries are committed to cooperate with each other in the field of joint use of military capabilities against a state or certain states.Also, one or more of the signatory states are committed, under which this alliance, to use the force or consultation on use it under certain conditions.David Edward suggests that alliance is a conditional commitment of a political or military nature among a group of countries by taking some cooperative joint measures in the face of a state or a set of other concerned states.
In his definition of alliance, Edwin Fedder see that it is the combination of strong states group through a certain period of time in order to increase the security of the member states (Mansur, 1997).
The theory of alliances has received a large share of interest in foreign literatures, particularly with regard to the study of NATO and Warsaw alliances during the cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.
However, this study does not address alliances.It deals with the issue of small countries and their alliances with the great powers, that's what we'll display through the application of the theory of alliances on Kuwait.
George Liska was the first who wrote about alliances in his book titled: "Nations in Alliance, The Limits of Interdependence" published in 1962.Liska says: It is impossible to speak of international relations without referring to alliances; the two often been merge in all expect in their names.His Nation in alliance emphasize the relevance of traditional alliance patterns in the contemporary international system.Affirmatively, states enter into alliances with one another in order to supplement each other's capabilities.Negatively, an alliance is a means of reducing the impact of antagonistic power, perceived as pressure, which threatens one's independence (Dwivedi, 2012).
The theory of alliances of Liska is based on the following points:  Alignments are the means for balance of power adjustments.Alliances aim at maximizing gains and sharing liabilities.
 State enter into alliances in order to prevent or reduce the influence of an opposing power, by maximizing their own capabilities, and are driven by national interests. Alignments are performed between a core power, and weaker states, each side experiencing limited benefits from mutual security and shared resources. Geographical proximity between allies is not a key factor, and deficiencies can be supplemented by ideological, cultural, or economic interests.What matters most is mutual accessibility between allies, however subjective it may be. Various scales of alignment (global, regional, domestic), as well as scales of conflict (dominant or non-dominant) affect the nature of the alignment and the amount of commitment to a specific alliance, resulting from an alignment (Kireyev, 2004) From the above it is clear that the of alliances theory apply largely to this study.In the point relating to alliances interested in maximizing interests, this matter is normal in relation between states, small states seek to maximize their interests in their alliances in order to benefit from alliance perfectly.
The second point concerning the states entered into alliances in order to reduce the power and influence of its enemies, we find that such point applies fully to small countries that enter into alliances with great powers in order to protect it from its enemies, and what drives the small states of these alliances is the national interest, which find that the alliances value and it will result in much better than staying under threat of potential enemies.
The third point links directly with the subject of this study, that the alliances made between large and small states to achieve the interest of both parties.
The fourth point relating to geographical proximity.Liska asserted that the geographical proximity is not important between the allied countries because the accessibility between the allied countries is the important, especially in the case of this study.The accessibility of the great powers at the right time to protect the small state is associated with it in the coalition.
Eventually, concerning the nature of international system and its effect on alliances.We find that this matter appeared after the collapse of Soviet Union where the previous allied states with the Eastern camp was in a weak position.In contrast, the powerful position of the allied states with the Western camp.This asserts that the status of the great power and its role in the international system is an important matter.
There are general characteristics of alliances upon which most researchers agreed.They are related to the reasons of alliances formation, the types of alliances and finally the continuation and end of alliances.

The Reasons of the Formation of Alliances
The researchers of international alliances agreed that they are not formed for initial reasons, but rather to achieve specific goals.Researchers saw that there are three key considerations: (1) The balance of power consideration: It is the traditional interpretation that states move according to their power in an attempt to achieve their objectives when its ability is not sufficient to achieve these goals.Therefore, they appeal to states to increase their power by making alliances.Partners are chosen on realistic foundations making the possibility of achieving these goals increasing.
(2) National features: Some emphasized that some countries tend more than others, due to their national features, to engage in alliances.These features are: the economic interests, the vision of leadership, ideological nature, and the historical experience.They concluded that states used to achieve their goals through their own capabilities look less inclined to enter into alliances than states that have a long history with alliances.
(3) The internal reasons: There are those who believe that the internal factors play a key role in determining state policy towards the phenomenon of alliances, whether initiative to form alliance, joining to existing alliance, or self-dependency through mobilizing the domestic resources.If the political, economic and social considerations limit the state's ability to mobilize its resources due to the external considerations, the desire for territorial expansion for domestic reasons may lead to the formation of alliances to achieve this goal, or to get the external support to maintain the existing system and to face the internal unrest.Regional balance often looked as a justification for alliances whose main objective is the stability of system.
Thus, a state engages in alliances when it realizes that the base of its own resources is insufficient to deal with the problems faced, achieve its objectives, or when it aware that its resources base in need of protection from external threats.Therefore, a state will not be looking for entering into alliances only when it is aware of the inability of its own resources but also for the achievement of its goals (Badras, 1998).
The reasons of entering into alliances are compatible with the case of the small countries.Small states seek, through all reasons mentioned above, to maintain its security and increase its power, and that is what small countries always seek to achieve.

Types of Alliances between States
(1) In terms of the legal alliance: There are formal alliances are based on treaties under which the allies bear explicit legal obligations with respect to the issue of cooperation.On the other hand, alliances may be informal, meaning they do not require a formal obligation which is based on the existence of coordination between decision making processes.The great powers usually resort to informal alliances in order to avoid relying the small states on them.The small states favor the conclusion of the formal alliances.
(2) In terms of the number of members: there is the bilateral alliances and the collective alliances.
(3) In terms of the objective of alliance: These alliances may be defensive and arose from the fears of the common threat the allied states may be exposed to it.In other cases, alliances may be offensive targeting attack on a specific state or the adoption of aggressive behavior towards it.Therefore, such alliances are often secret.
(4) In terms of time period: alliances may be temporary, which are the coalitions of necessity.They have a limited period of time which expires when the goal is achieved.Also, there are permanent alliances, which have no period.
(5) In terms of publicity: there are public alliances which declared to the world.Also, there are secret alliances with an offensive nature, which allow the member states to take advantage of the surprise element.
(6) In terms of the geographical dimension: there are alliances arise between neighboring countries.They are stronger than others due to the element of neighboring.On the other hand, there are alliances between countries which are distant geographically.However, they are linked to a unity of purpose (Atef, 2015).

Continuation and the End of International Alliances
Most of opinions emanating from the realist school emphasized that alliances do not last long because they are formed for a specific purpose.They often disintegrate as soon as the goal has been achieved or has not been achieved, in the sense victory or defeat in a war.Liska said that: "Because alliances are formed against a party, they quickly disintegrate after achieving the goals, unless it has been developed an ideology of alliances justifies the survival of alliance after achieving its goal".Sullivan saw that the alliance continues a longer period whenever it has numerous and obscure goals, not limited ones.
Alliance ends when the state see that the cost of continuing it exceeds gains, or they pay more than they take.Furthermore, states fear that long-term engagement with permanent alliances and development its institutional structures lead to the weakness and erosion of the state sovereignty.While others argue that the longer period of the survival of alliance increases its legitimacy.The matter ultimately depends on mechanisms created by the alliance to coordinate and cooperate (Badras, 1998).

Fourth: Kuwait in the International Alliances
Kuwait is small state which adopts international alliances policy.Since its establishment, it is under attack from its neighbors.Therefore, we find that the policy of alliances coincided with the emergence of Kuwait and is continuing until the present day.
The treaty of protection between Kuwait and Britain is signed in 1899, which was more like an alliance due to the nature of the relationship at that time between them.The period of British protection of Kuwait continued until 1961 when Kuwait obtained its independence.As a modern independent state, security and survival became again at the head of the goals of it policies because Abdul Karim Qassem, the Iraq President that time, announced demands in Kuwait, just six days after the announcement of Kuwait's independence from Britain (Al Ibrahim, 1982).
Since the independence of Kuwait, foreign policy had three basic objectives, which are: political and military security properties, the principles and values, which is to protect Arab interests and Islamic values, and thirdly the concept of justice, in the sense that the humanitarian message towards Arab and developing countries, and the task of the political system is the country's financial returns investment.
We can say that Kuwait's foreign policy since independence in 1961 is dominated by a specific dynamic, and the feature of this dynamic are: -Kuwait policy does not stem from itself, but stems from the external influence and orientation.In other words, this policy includes the reactions and repercussions of external events and other factors, rather than being self-directed.More precisely, the external environment poses the most of internal dynamics of the internal Kuwaiti policy and the external Kuwaiti one based on quantitative and qualitative variables in neighboring states and regional changes.
-The Kuwaiti individual capabilities to defend itself against external threats are relatively limited.Whatever even if Kuwait possessed the techniques and mechanisms weapons, its cannot match up with its rivals or with its enemies.The power of Kuwaiti military deterrence is limited.As experiences have shown, Kuwait always needs a strong foreign aid to protect its territories.
-The sources of Kuwait's continuing as a successful and integrated unit is: Possessing liquid bounties (oil), acting as a donor state and a political mediator, playing the intellectual and media roles in the Arab region.
It is carrying out these roles in order to neutralize opponents and find friends.Overall, Kuwait aims to attract the attention of world public opinion and depend on great powers to support it.Kuwait has a global political base by establishing balanced political and economic relations with many countries (Al Ibrahim, 1982).
Kuwait witnessed, over the past three decades, major changes in its foreign policy, in addition to great changes in the international system have been occurred.For example, the collapse of the Soviet Union.This collapse led to the end of the Cold War between the two western and Eastern camps, and then produced a new model in the international arena, namely uni-polar system led by the United States.Previously, the prevailing international system was bi-polar system led by the United States and Soviet Union.This Uniqueness enjoyed by the United States made it the dominated on the international system and most influential on various political military, and economic levels and even cultural through the influence of its soft power on other communities.
Coinciding with these events, Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990 where the Iraqi troops occupied Kuwait completely and announced that Kuwait became annexed to Iraq in one of the most heinous crimes in the modern history.However, the international community and all great powers supported the Kuwaiti issue.Also, the Security Council issued several resolutions concerning the necessity of getting out of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the international war will be the alternative in case of delaying this matter.Indeed, this is what happened where Kuwait was liberated by Coalition forces in February 1991.The United States was the head of the coalition forces that found a broad welcome in Kuwait and all the Gulf Arab states surrounding it.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was what made Kuwait focuses on international alliances, especially in military and security.Kuwait focused in alliances with the United States and some major European countries.This matter made the foreign policy of Kuwait attached with the American foreign policy.This is confirmed in the war on Iraq in 2003 led by the United States and with the help of the United Kingdom, challenging all countries in the world which rejected this intervention in Iraq.However, Kuwait helped United States in this war where it provided, in spite of its small size and modesty of its capabilities, a strategic and logistical support for the American forces.More than 250 thousand soldiers from the multinational forces and the thousands of equipment, machinery and vehicles entered from the Kuwaiti territories to Iraq.Also, Kuwait allowed coalition forces to use two military airbases and allowed using its seaports.According to the report of the US Congress, Kuwait gave the United States $206 million in direct contribution to "Iraq freedom operation", in addition to $60 million for food and fuel.Furthermore, it allowed the United States to use two ground bases as a center of command of US forces in Kuwait.Appreciating for the clear Kuwaiti role in supporting Iraq freedom operation, the Bush administration classified Kuwait as a major ally (non-NATO), a status given to a few countries in the world (Al shayji, 2008).
It should be confirmation that Kuwait has faced Arab and Islamic criticism for crossing the American forces its territories for invading Iraq in 2003, the matter which is justified by Kuwait at the time that it was accordance with bilateral agreements concluded with the western countries in this regard, and that the national security takes precedence over everything else (Keshk, 2012).
However, Kuwait paid no attention to this matter, and justified its situation that it defends its security against regime long tried previously to occupy it entirely.And that was assured later because "Kuwait served as the key exit rout for U.S. troops as they withdrew from Iraq.Prior to the U.S. withdrawal, there was discussion that the United State might build up forces in Kuwait that could intervene in Iraq if the Iraqi Security Forces run into difficulty.A substantial U.S. force in Kuwait would also presumably add to U.SI capabilities to confront Iran if disputes with the United States over its nuclear program and its role in the Middle East and Persian Gulf were to escalate (Katzman, 2014) all that assured the alliance between Kuwait and the United States is obligate Kuwait to be under the command of U.S.

Conclusion
Kuwait serves as a model of small nation-state with an alliance with a major power like US. Kuwait's fate and destiny have been determined and sealed long time ago by four sobering facts: geography, oil, wealth, and strategic vulnerability.All these factors continue to color and force Kuwait to engage in a ceaseless quest for survival in the most precarious and volatile yet valuable and indispensable region in the world.Kuwait represents a classic prototype for the core principle that geography and resources shape the behavior of nation-state (Alshayji, 2010).
Accordingly, we find that the relationship between the small and great countries is directly proportional relationship, in which the small states obtains protection by alliance, but obligated to be a dependent state to the great country in its political orientations, though this was not declaring officially according the terms of alliance, but it is an intuitive matter in the game of politics between states.
The great states do not provide its protection for small states, desiring in protecting them, even if the great countries benefits from the small countries financially as in the case of Kuwait.The great countries consider in all aspects through which they can benefit from the small country.However, the small states often justify its supportive situations for the great countries by providing many excuses.This is what occurs with Kuwait, especially in its relationship with the United States.
Kuwait has been justified its supporting for its allies that these decisions stem from self-will, but this is not entirely true.For example, in the war on Iraq, it maintained that the goal was to overthrow the Iraqi regime due to harm caused it during the occupation of Kuwait in 1990, and the continuation in threating Kuwait all these years until its fall in 2003.However, the reality is that Kuwait's alliance with the United States and other major powers has imposed an absolute dependency on all issues adopted by the United States, and less with the European countries.
This confirms that although the small states are constantly seeking to ally with the great powers, but this alliance has an undisclosed cost.Small states in their quest for protection from allied states with them they abandon a part of its identity, especially concerning the international issues.Small states are satellite states, living in the shadow of the great states.However, the small states see that this dependency is much better than to remain exposed to the threats from the powerful countries, especially in a tense and complicated territory as the Middle East.