‘Stable gov’t is crucial for the country’s development drive’
Also:
“WE mentioned in a previous article that one of the reasons for the disruption of development in Kuwait is the frequent change of ministers, to the point where the minister is unable to bring about any development in his ministry, or implement his government work program before he quits or is shown the door,” columnist Mubarak Fahd Al-Duwailah wrote for Al-Qabas daily. “This happens to the point that Kuwait is considered one of the countries in the world that changes governments the most! Perhaps this is the reason why we see that the country’s problems have not been solved for several years, such as paving the streets and not launching infrastructure development projects for a long time, the last project was in 2017, and there are other reasons.
“Some were accusing the National Assembly of obstructing development, through its strict monitoring of ministers, to the point where every minister was afraid to ‘thread a needle’. This is not true, as the construction of bridges and tunnels does not require the approval of the National Assembly, and the establishment of solar energy stations in the desert does not require a decision from the National Assembly.
“The National Assembly and the development of electronic government also does not require the National Assembly. The important thing is that these achievements are according to the correct standards.
“The country needs stability at all levels: stability in the formation of the government that makes the minister secure its future, stability in the National Assembly that makes the representative think right, and stability among the senior officials who manage the country’s institutions and implement development programs, and all of this is not incompatible with continuous development.
“Today, not only the minister is unstable, but the undersecretary, the assistant undersecretary, and even the director to the head of the department are all unstable, and all of them have been working on assignments for many years. How do you expect them to develop their work and improve their performance?
“The country needs a ‘revolution’. Yes, it needs a development movement in appointments and in tools. Yes, tools. Many work management tools cause disgusting bureaucracy, which hinders achievement.
“Today we need to destroy the documentary cycle that leads to lethargy, inability and laziness of the employee. The book It takes a week to move from room to room on the same floor, while in e-government it only needs a “button” to move the book in a second.
“Today we need to do more than theorize, as many of the Council of Ministers’ decisions remain locked in drawers without anyone to implement them.
“In the nineties, when I was a member in the National Assembly, I proposed to the president to prevent MPs from entering the ministries, because most of their intermediaries either violated the system or violated the rights of others, but the wave was the opposite of this trend, and the proposal did not succeed.
“Today is the appropriate time to represent it or think about it, in the hope that it will make the representative devote himself to the task of legislation and oversight, and let the official devote himself to the task of his work, and what appears to be that he has upset the representatives, and what a shame from the interrogation!”
“It has become clearly visible since the Al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, that the Ukrainian war has been marginalized to a very large extent at the level of global and media attention, as well as in the West. Regarding the latter, the truth is that the war in Gaza only revealed the declining level of Western support for Ukraine that already existed, not to mention the declining level of support after the Gaza War,” columnist Dr Dana Al-Enezi wrote for Al-Rai daily.
“To delve deeper into the reasons for the decline in Western military support for Ukraine; some key poignant facts that were clear even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine need to be made clear. The first fact, which in our opinion is the most important, is that Russian President Putin took the decision to invade while being completely certain that Europe and the United States would be completely unable to defeat his forces in Ukraine.
“This would require pushing NATO to the front line in exchange for a “confirmed” Russian nuclear response, even if it was a tactical one. This is certainly an absolutely unlikely scenario on the part of the West, especially the United States.
“The second fact revolves around the West’s own perception of the Russian threat. It can be said, despite the consensus of the West, that after the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has become an imminent threat to them, especially to Europe.
“However, the level of seriousness of this threat varies between them. Some Eastern European countries, such as Bulgaria, do not see Russia as a great danger, but are prepared to ally with it. Southern European countries such as Spain and France see the main threat as emanating from immigration and terrorism. This means that these countries may be willing to conclude a deal with Russia at the expense of Ukraine if that would end the war or the Russian threat.
“Accordingly, two very important things became clear immediately after the invasion. The first was a clear European reluctance to get involved and impose sanctions on Russia. Second, the United States led the hesitant Western bloc to confront the invasion.
“The evidence in the matter is that in light of these data, the West has settled on the scenario of exhausting Russia militarily by supporting Ukraine, and economically by tightening sanctions. This is definitely an American effort to weaken Russia and obstruct the establishment of a strong Russian-Chinese alliance. It also appears that Russia has accepted the rules of the game that the West has accepted.
“The West strongly supported Ukraine at all levels, financially, economically, logistically, and militarily. As a result, Ukraine achieved some gains on the ground in late 2022, but soon lost those gains, which led, among other things, to a decline in Western support until it was significantly reduced with the Gaza War.
“Washington is the most important supporter of Ukraine and the locomotive of European support for Ukraine, and the Al-Aqsa flood, which posed a very dangerous threat to Israel’s security, came to completely absorb American attention.
“The priority of military support has become for Israel and not for Ukraine. Basically, Ukraine does not represent major strategic importance to Washington - contrary to what many people imagine -- the major strategic importance that may require direct American intervention is focused on the strategic areas of conflict with China, specifically Taiwan and the East and West China Seas.
“This is not to mention, Washington is suffering from a difficult economic crisis, which has been evident in Congress’ disagreements over military spending priorities and the new military spending law directed entirely at confronting China, which has reduced allocations for military support to Ukraine.
“Although the decline in European support was greatly affected by the decline in American support, there are other driving reasons for this decline, the most prominent of which is the exhaustion of European budgets as a result of this support, especially since they are also suffering from a major inflation crisis.
“Enthusiasm for Ukraine’s achievement of a fundamental victory in the war has waned. It must be taken into account that there are major changes taking place in the West that strongly contribute to the West’s division against itself and the occurrence of a rift between Europe and Washington, such as the growth of populism, the rising role of the left, and the decline of central Eastern Europe’s confidence in the European Union and NATO.
“Summary of the statement: The horizon of Western support for Ukraine is not clear, and the West is in a major dilemma regarding Ukraine. In addition to daily challenges updates. Therefore, the low support for Ukraine will likely continue, along with the push from other parties, especially China, to try to end the war through a balanced settlement that saves the face of the West.”