In some cases, of the three components of a state, the territorial component (second) appears to be more important than the demographic component (first). Even though the population factor is the pillar of the national tent, without the population factor, the nation would not have been established in the first place. Without a safe zone that can protect against all dangers lurking from within and without, the stability of the national project, and ultimately its survival, cannot be guaranteed.
In other words, there are two types of borders that separate the beginning of one (state’s) sovereignty from another. The first is physically manifest through its topography and the resources it contains, and consists of land, water, and the airspace above it (boundaries). Second, what is known as secure borders, is what each country seeks to ensure its maximum defense capability of its territory. These secure borders are drawn by lines parallel to national borders. A (imaginary) line that is not fixed, but flexible as far as possible depending on national security requirements and expansion planning and capability arrangements. Secure borders do not appear on national atlases, but are drawn by sovereign foreign policy-making bodies.
Borders between countries are often areas of friction and sometimes conflict. In any case: Historically, security concerns have remained in the political context of each country, depending on the resurgence of border disputes, even those resolved through security agreements or treaties. Because, in the end, neither ink on paper, nor good intentions, nor international treaties and conventions, nor alliances with great powers, nor even natural barriers will bring security, stability, and sustainable tranquility to our borders with neighboring countries. Generally. This is known as the strategically secure border.
States, in their unrelenting efforts to protect national security, often extend secure borders beyond national borders and impose their adoption according to national security requirements. Some countries do not even have their own constitutions because they do not define the extent of their territory. Rather, they may openly seek to draw secure borders, driven by expansionist objectives, at the expense of the security of their neighbors, without specifying exactly where the border begins and ends. Let’s take Israel as an example. Today, the United States no longer considers the Atlantic Ocean to the east to be a secure natural border, so it has extended its borders eastward by annexing the frozen island of Greenland, either as a purchase or property for national security requirements, as the United States claims.
Historically: Efforts by states to draw secure borders for themselves beyond the (inter)national lines of defense within which their population groups reside pose a security concern to sovereign decision-making institutions. Just imagine. For example, if Egypt had a border and the majority of its population was concentrated on either side of the Nile River, or on the Sinai border with Palestine to the east, Egypt would feel (strategically) secure. Of course not. Historically, Egypt has always drawn its borders to the east, and the main strategic threats to its national security extend eastward beyond the Sinai Peninsula to the Levant and into the Anatolian plateau, namely the decisive battle of Konya (December 21, 1832) with Turkish forces. More than 3,000 years ago, during the reign of Ramesses II, Egypt signed a peace treaty with the Hittites (Treaty of Kadesh, 1258-1259 BC) in which Egypt confirmed that secure borders reached the heart of the Levant. This was repeated when Egypt defeated the Tatars at the Battle of Ain Jalut (September 3, 1260) near the Palestinian city of Nablus. South: Pharaonic Egypt’s secure borders extended to the source of the Nile until 1929, when it was documented in an agreement that divided the waters of the Nile between Egypt, Uganda, Tanzania, and Ethiopia.
All countries have maps that parallel their national security borders, even if they have not declared secure borders, and are sometimes known for their strategic depth. When a country senses danger regarding its national security requirements, it activates its sense of security and takes the initiative to declare a secure border beyond its borders, using both hard and soft power to protect national security.
This is (exactly) what the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did last December, when the Kingdom took decisive, resolute and resolute action to confront the imminent danger that arose on its southern borders, turning into a visceral feeling of a clear and imminent threat to its national security. Riyadh then issued a stern and firm warning to those responsible for the incident to leave the area within 24 hours, and promptly announced that it would withdraw its troops from Yemen in six hours. As a result, the stage was set for Saudi hard and soft power to ensure that its secure borders extend not only to its borders but also to strategic depths beyond the territory of the Arabian Peninsula. This includes the borders of the Middle East region from the Anatolian Plateau south to North Africa, across the Arabian Sea to the Indian Ocean in the south…and along the Horn of Africa and northern East Africa, south of the Sahara to deep Africa, and east to the northeastern Atlantic Ocean.
With decisive strategic strikes, Riyadh has revealed its secure strategic borders to the whole world and its strategic legitimacy (internationally) has been recognized…and through high-level, efficient and effective diplomatic efforts, it has established that Saudi Arabia can defend its national security zeal with firm determination and a competent, confident and bold political will.
Sometimes, of the three components of a state, the territorial component (second) appears to be more important than the demographic component (first). Even though the population factor is the pillar of the national tent, without it the nation would not exist in the first place. This is because without a secure territory that can be defended from latent threats from within and without, a national project cannot guarantee its stability and, ultimately, its survival.
Therefore, there are two types of boundaries that separate the autonomy of one state from another. The first is physically manifested by its topography and the resources it contains, consisting of land, water, and airspace above it (boundaries). The second is known as secure borders, where each state seeks to ensure maximum defense capabilities for its territory. These secure borders are drawn as lines parallel to national borders. A (fictitious) line that is not fixed and is flexible as far as possible according to national security requirements and expansion planning and capability arrangements. Secure borders do not appear on state atlases. They are drawn by institutions involved in determining sovereign foreign policy.
Borders between countries are often areas of friction and sometimes conflict. In any case, historically security concerns have been in the political context of a nation and can revive border disputes, even those resolved through agreements and security treaties, because after all, neither ink on paper, nor good intentions, nor international agreements and treaties, nor alliances with great powers, nor even natural barriers will bring security, stability, and lasting peace to a nation’s borders with its neighbors. This is commonly referred to as a strategically secure border.
In the relentless pursuit of protecting national security, states often extend secure borders beyond national borders and impose their adoption as a national security requirement. Some states do not even write their own constitutions because they do not define the extent of their territory. In fact, they may openly seek to draw secure borders, driven by expansionist objectives at the expense of the security of neighboring countries, without precisely defining where the border begins and ends. Let’s use Israel as an example. Today, the United States no longer views the eastern expanse of the Atlantic Ocean as a secure natural border and, as it claims, has extended its borders eastward by annexing the frozen island of Greenland, whether purchased or acquired for reasons of national security.
Historically, the pursuit of states to draw secure borders for themselves beyond the defensive (international) line where their national population densities exist constitutes a security concern for circles of domestic sovereign decision-making institutions. Just imagine. For example, Egypt would feel (strategically) secure if its borders were such that most of its population was concentrated between the banks of the Nile River, or the Sinai border with Palestine to the east. Of course not. Historically, Egypt has continued to draw its borders to the east. The main strategic threat to national security extends east beyond the Sinai Peninsula into the Levant and even into the Anatolian Plateau with the decisive Battle of Konya (December 21, 1832) against the Turks. More than 3,000 years ago, during the reign of Ramesses II, Egypt signed a peace treaty with the Hittites (Treaty of Kadesh, 1258-1259 BC). Egypt has ensured that its secure borders reach into the heart of the Levantine region. This was repeated when Egypt defeated the Mongols at the Battle of Ain Jalut (September 3, 1260) near the Palestinian city of Nablus. In the south, pharaonic Egypt’s secure borders extended to the source of the Nile until a 1929 agreement was documented to divide the river’s waters between Egypt, Uganda, Tanzania, and Ethiopia.
All states have parallel maps of national security borders, also known as strategic depth, even if they have not announced secure borders. When a country feels threatened regarding its national security requirements, its sense of security becomes active, leading it to declare safe borders across borders and use both hard and soft power to protect its national security.
This is exactly what happened last December when the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia resolutely and resolutely confronted the immediate threat that arose on its southern border, turning into a visceral feeling of a clear and imminent threat to its national security. At the time, Riyadh issued a stern and firm warning to those responsible to withdraw from the area within 24 hours, prompting Riyadh to hastily announce that it would withdraw its troops from Yemen six hours later. As a result, the stage is set for the Kingdom’s hard and soft power to ensure that its secure borders extend not only to its borders but also to strategic depths beyond the Arabian Peninsula. It includes the borders of the Middle East from the southern Anatolian Plateau and North Africa, across the Arabian Sea to the Indian Ocean in the south, and includes the Horn of Africa and northern East Africa, which extend deep into Africa from the southern Sahara to the northeastern Atlantic Ocean in the east.
With a decisive strategic offensive, Riyadh revealed to the whole world its (internationally) recognized and justified secure strategic borders… and consolidated this with high-level, competent and effective diplomatic efforts, demonstrating that Saudi Arabia is capable of decisive determination and political will, capable of defending its national security with competent, confident boldness.
