Calls in the Saudi media for relations between Gulf states to be reassessed should be taken seriously. But the first thing that needs to be reconsidered is the belief that a country’s size or historic contributions give it permanent authority over others.
In politics, stature comes from building trust and delivering results. Leadership is earned through the acceptance of others. Claiming it for oneself and then demanding that others fall in line is not enough.
In that context, the arguments of Khalid bin Hamad al-Malik, the dean of Saudi media and editor-in-chief of the Al Jazirah newspaper, contain contradictions that are hard to miss. While denying any Saudi desire for dominance, he divides the Middle East into one country responsible for protection and others that have no choice but to seek its shelter. This will only lead to one misstep after another. It assumes that the independence of other countries is misguided, that their differences reflect arrogance, and that their interests are legitimate only when they align with the vision of the “big brother.” Protection, meanwhile, is a responsibility that is tested in times of danger. When a state comes under attack, struggles to protect its cities and infrastructure, and needs security guarantees and weapons from abroad, it has even more reason to approach others with humility. Being attacked does not diminish a state’s dignity, and seeking help from allies is a legitimate choice. But it is hard to claim a monopoly on protecting the region when protecting one’s own territory remains such a challenge. A country that needs a common security umbrella would do well to approach partners on an equal footing.
Money alone does not create power. The same is true of territory, population, and military spending. All are resources, and what matters is whether a state can convert them into security, influence, and prosperity. A small country may succeed in building institutions, partnerships and capabilities that give it influence beyond its size. Dismissing such success as an inflated sense of self-importance means critics don’t ask the important questions: How did this country make effective use of what it had, and what can we learn from it?
The same goes for invoking past contributions. Doing so requires respect for the full historical record: the will of the people, their resistance, alliances, international decisions, and the contributions of various parties. Reducing a collective effort into a story of a lone savior is an attempt to turn history into an instrument of obedience. But gratitude should not create an open-ended political dependency. Sovereignty remains an enduring right.
Regional policies, too, must be judged by the same standard expected of others: on results. What has been achieved, and at what cost? Has the neighborhood become more stable, have borders become more secure, and have agreements moved closer? Declaring a commitment to stability is no substitute for results. Nor does the scale of sacrifice exempt decisions from criticism and review.
Regional cohesion requires mutual respect that accommodates differences in interests and judgment. Leadership that reassures partners of their independence is better able to unite them than rhetoric that reminds them of their smallness and their supposed dependence whenever they disagree. Brandishing the threat of danger to demonstrate the necessity of obedience undermines the trust that any common defense arrangement requires.
So yes, reassess. Start with the gap between the stature claimed in rhetoric and capabilities demonstrated by facts. Anyone who asks for their role to be recognized must respect the rights of others to judge it. True leadership is giving partners a greater sense of security and independence, while also retaining their trust and leaving them free to disagree.
