What distinguishes terrorism committed by individuals or armed groups from violence inflicted by states?
Does an act become any less reprehensible when those responsible command armies, possess sophisticated weapons and exercise political authority?
These questions demand serious reflection in a world where geopolitical interests increasingly overshadow fundamental principles.
International law rightly distinguishes between the responsibilities of states and non-state actors.
Yet a profound injustice emerges when violence is judged according to who commits it rather than its nature and consequences.
Powerful nations wield considerable influence over the language of international politics.
Acts condemned as terrorism when perpetrated by one party may be presented as legitimate military operations or necessary security measures when carried out by a major power or its allies.
Such double standards erode confidence in the international order and undermine the very principles it claims to uphold.
For civilians subjected to violence and displacement, the identity or political standing of those responsible does nothing to diminish their suffering.
Such acts must be judged by their consequences, not by the power or influence of those who commit them.
By this measure, the terrorist attacks against Saudi Arabia warrant unequivocal condemnation, as no political grievance or strategic objective can justify targeting cities, civilian infrastructure or innocent lives.
The Houthi movement’s sophisticated missile systems, drones and military capabilities also raise serious questions about the external assistance sustaining its operations.
United Nations experts have concluded that such capabilities could not have been developed without substantial foreign support.
The international community therefore bears a responsibility to address the networks of financing, arms supplies and military assistance that perpetuate regional instability.
Equally alarming are concerns surrounding the safety and sanctity of Mecca and Medina.
Saudi authorities have accused the Houthis of threatening areas associated with Islam’s holiest cities, allegations the movement denies.
Whatever the competing claims, the protection of sacred sites and worshippers must remain beyond political or military confrontation.
Yet the larger question extends far beyond any single conflict: where is the world heading if the pursuit of power continues to override restraint?
The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 brought humanity to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.
Ultimately, Washington and Moscow recognised that a nuclear confrontation could yield no meaningful victory.
Today, the dangers are no less troubling, although the instruments have changed.
Long-range missiles, unmanned aircraft, cyberwarfare and increasingly sophisticated military technologies have created new possibilities for destruction.
Artificial intelligence presents a particularly unsettling paradox.
One of humanity’s greatest technological achievements, with extraordinary potential to advance human welfare, could also become an instrument of surveillance, coercion and warfare.
As nations compete to develop increasingly autonomous military systems, the absence of effective international safeguards threatens to unleash another dangerous arms race.
The fundamental problem is not the existence of power, but the failure to establish meaningful limits on its exercise.
No international order can command lasting legitimacy if the strongest nations write the rules while reserving the right to disregard them.
The United Nations must therefore regain its capacity to act.
Whether through meaningful institutional reform or more effective international mechanisms, the world needs credible institutions capable of preventing wars, protecting civilians and holding violators of international law accountable.
Americans and Russians can disagree. China and Europe can compete.
Nations can pursue economic influence, technological advancement and strategic interests without making human lives the price of their rivalries.
The greatest danger facing humanity is not disagreement itself, but the loss of our ability to manage differences without resorting to violence.
A civilisation that has reached the Moon, developed artificial intelligence and built an interconnected global economy surely possesses the ingenuity to devise an international order that protects it from self-destruction.
Ultimately, true strength lies not in the ability to destroy an adversary, but in the wisdom to prevent destruction.
Genuine victory is not achieved by imposing one’s will upon others, but by creating a world in which we can disagree without killing, compete without going to war, and coexist even when we do not love one another.
akram@fp7.com