The COVID-19 pandemic is, first and foremost, a health risk. But we also rate various countries’ response to the crisis – like a stock market. In doing so, the main criterion is who was adequately prepared and whose response proved sufficient.

Saudi Arabia has been in the news for the last several weeks due to recent economic and political developments in the kingdom. If the government does not control the pace of the developments, it will be quite difficult to maintain social, economic and political stability. The ailing King Mohammad bin Salman and his son Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) took some seemingly significant but high-stake gambles in the last few weeks.

As China declares victory over the coronavirus, the World Health Organization (WHO) says Europe has become the pandemic’s epicenter. With Italy’s death toll on the rise, Western leaders have responded to the crisis in different ways. It is possible to argue that ideology, together with their respective health care systems’ total capacity and leadership styles, played some role there.

Since the spread of the coronavirus worldwide, many have argued that the response will influence various dimensions of the international system.

The coronavirus pandemic established, however, that we, as fellow humans, have a middle ground and certain shared responsibilities beyond self-interest and fear. No country can afford to isolate itself from the outside world. That path only leads to more poverty, conflict and bloodshed. What was simply a Chinese problem just weeks ago is now a truly global issue.

After a six-hour meeting between leaders and technical committees, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Russian counterpart announced a cease-fire for Syria's Idlib. During the meeting at the Kremlin, the presidents gave short speeches. The whole world followed the process as the decisions could trigger an escalation in violence while intensifying the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Syria. Turkey and Russia both wanted to end the civil war but were unwilling to concede their positions. For both Turkey and Russia, bilateral relations were at stake as well.

The concept of human security has emerged as an essential paradigm for understanding global vulnerabilities as part of a shift that goes beyond traditional security concerns. According to this paradigm, the main focus of security should be human beings rather than political entities such as states and proposes a multidisciplinary understanding of security covering many fields, such as international relations, strategic studies, human rights and development studies.

Two weeks ago in this column, it was stated that the new coronavirus epidemic should serve as a wake-up call for the international community to better prepare for the next outbreak.

In 2003, the SARS virus was one of the first wake-up calls for the pro-globalization crowd in regard to the potential impacts of the erosion of borders vis-a-vis the spread of diseases. Although pandemics were nothing new for the world, the rapid spread of the SARS virus generated concerns about the future.