الأمن أغلى أصول الدولة

Security is one of the most important justifications for the logic of the state's emergence, and it may even be the most important. Human society did not evolve from small, scattered communities dominated by violent conflict and instability, as was the case in the pre-state phase, which social contract philosophers refer to as the first stage of natural life. In the first stage of natural life, humans preferred security over freedom, allowing for the transition to civil societal life by replacing absolute freedom with security. Thus, security is one of the most important foundations, characteristics, and legitimate justifications for the emergence of the state, its secret to survival, and the primary return for its continuity. There is no freedom without security, and there will be no security at the expense of freedom.

This high strategic status of security, closely related to the emergence of the state and ensuring its stability and the motivation for its survival, requires the allocation of substantial resources, which may exceed the state's actual and potential resources. Therefore, it is difficult to ensure security relying solely on the state's actual and potential resources, which drives the state, in search of security, to turn to the external environment, which ironically is the primary source of the clear and imminent threat to the state's security!

In search of security at the lowest possible cost, states resort to cooperating with other international parties to provide the necessary security for the state's survival and continuity. This applies equally to both wealthy advanced countries and impoverished ones. The principle of state sovereignty is considered one of its most valuable assets that must be available. In reality, there is no absolute sovereignty, in its "classical" definition, just as there is no effective and efficient security that relies solely on the state's resources.

In reality, as long as certain behaviors may sometimes suggest, from their appearance, that they compromise the value and status of "sacred" sovereignty, and are prioritized by the national authority (the government), they do not represent a violation of the principle and value of sovereignty; rather, they are sovereign decisions that support the state's security and stability.

For example, in the forms of international understandings, security strategies may require the presence of military manifestations imposed by treaties within the state's own territory, or the presence of military activities (foreign) participating in the treaty. This foreign military presence is not considered a breach of sovereignty, but rather a necessity for national security, which is reinforced by treaties such as mutual defense agreements, where the will of the members of those agreements comes together to provide security for all members within a comprehensive security system to ensure the highest levels of mutual defense. Here, too, the value of security takes precedence over the value of sovereignty, just as it previously took precedence over the value of freedom. Thus, the value of security is entrenched in the state, as it is closely related to the existence of the state, more than any other value, including the values of freedom and sovereignty.

From a strategic perspective, the ultimate value of security, represented in the form of joint military cooperation, does not necessarily mean readiness for joint military action at its highest level of interaction (war), but rather the efficiency of joint military agreements lies in avoiding the outbreak of war. Their function is embodied in preventing war, not participating in it or inciting its outbreak. The purpose of building the structures of joint military agreements is to provide strategic deterrence against any aggression from the external environment against any member of the mutual defense agreements. One of the most important clauses is the one that is always referred to textually, stating that any aggression against one of the parties to the mutual defense treaty is considered aggression against all members of the treaty. This clause is the cornerstone of the strategic deterrence provided by collective joint treaties.

Last Friday, a mutual defense agreement was signed in Mecca between three member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan). This mutual defense agreement is nothing more than a treaty to establish a joint military alliance among these countries, not only to provide security protection for each member of the agreement but also to create a security system (regional), similar to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to ensure sustainable stability in the region, with each of the three countries contributing its defensive resources to support this regional joint alliance.

There is no doubt that the Mecca mutual defense agreement will provide a positive addition to halting the escalation in a war that has lasted for months in the region, between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other, geography has compelled other countries to be affected due to their geographical location and to be in the line of fire between the warring states. An agreement like this will have among its first fruits the prevention of the war's expansion beyond its main theater, among the warring states (the three).

Security remains the most valuable asset of the state, deserving of great sacrifices in its defense, taking precedence over all other state assets, including freedom and sovereignty. Without security, there will be no state, and consequently, no freedom, no sovereignty, and not even a state.