Neutrality is no longer acceptable!

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

Any country has the right to disagree with the Kingdom in its political positions, and to have its own interests and calculations, but no one has the right to treat the targeting of the Kingdom’s security as a political dispute towards which one can remain neutral... especially after attacks with missiles and drones have begun to target the lives of civilians and the security of a country whose stability is linked to the interests of the entire region.

The irony is that some of those who deal with these attacks as if they were a private Saudi matter are more aware than others that the stability of the Kingdom is not a purely Saudi matter. The regional economy, energy security, trade and investment movement, and even development opportunities in the region are linked to varying degrees to Saudi Arabia’s stability and its ability to continue its major projects. For years, the Kingdom has borne great security, political and economic burdens, which contributed to protecting the stability of the region and preventing the spread of chaos, and the results of this stability were not limited to the Saudis; Countries, markets, trade corridors, and entire peoples have benefited from it. Therefore, it is no longer sufficient for capitals to talk about the importance of Gulf security and stability in their statements, or to be content with condemning the attacks without taking practical steps to prevent their recurrence.

There is an equally important responsibility that lies with the international community and its institutions. Targeting airports and civilian facilities should not be subject to the scales of political sympathy or differing positions on the target country. It is unfortunate that some attacks turn into issues that mobilize the world, while other attacks pass without the same attention, as if the lives and security of civilians are subject to the calculations of politics and interests. What is required here is not exceptional treatment of Saudi Arabia, but rather the application of the same standards to everyone; International law does not distinguish between civilians according to their nationalities, and does not grant armed groups immunity from accountability simply because they raise political slogans that find those who sympathize with them.

Taking a clear position does not mean entering into a war or adopting Saudi options. What is required is to prevent any support reaching the perpetrators of the attacks, and to cooperate seriously to stop the threat, instead of treating it as a card that can be used in calculations of influence and bargaining. Saudi Arabia, with its capabilities and status, does not expect anyone to defend it, but it has the right to ask its partners about the meaning of partnership when its security is at risk. Relations between countries are not tested by statements of courtesy, but rather by clear and frank positions. Not everyone is required to agree with Riyadh on everything, but when it comes to targeting its territory, neutrality is no longer an acceptable position!