Zafar Khan
Scholar of International Relations, Visiting Faculty at the Faculty of Contemporary Studies, National Defence University, Islamabad.
heyitszafarkhan@gmail.com
The signing of the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement between Pakistan – the only nuclear-armed Muslim country – and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has garnered significant attention since its announcement on September 17. Both states have enjoyed cordial relations since the 1950s, with cooperation extending into strategic, political, economic, and cultural realms. However, this latest development in the relationship has gained global attention. What makes it so significant is the timing of this agreement.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) struck Qatar’s capital Doha on September 9. Israel defended this strike as a counter-terrorism measure against its greatest enemy – Hamas. Despite Israel’s attempt to justify its unlawful strike, condemnations poured in from regional as well as global leaders. A joint statement by the Arab League and a coalition of Islamic countries denounced the action as “a direct threat to Arab national security, to the sovereignty of states, and to regional and international peace and security.” The strike has been pronounced, by most analysts and foreign policy practitioners, as the SMDA’s raison d’être. Yet a very valid question remains: is it really that simple?
It cannot be denied that IDF’s unlawful aggression against Doha has made the Arabs, Saudis in particular, realize the dangers of Israel’s unchecked behavior in the region – it has struck seven states across the Middle East, notwithstanding the atrocities it has committed in Gaza – within a week under the pretext of national security. In the wake of this attack, the religious prophecies of a greater Israel – that includes West Bank, Gaza, parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and even Saudi Arabia – are being touted as Israel’s expansionist agenda. It would not be remiss to say that this claim echoes the Israeli Prime Minister’s unequivocal advocacy of the “historic and spiritual mission” of the Promised Land and Greater Israel. However, is it not merely the issue of Greater Israel that is behind this pact.
Historically, the United States has been the primary guarantor of the Arabs’ security, particularly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The US still maintains a heavy military presence in the region with military bases in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Al Ubeid Air Base in Qatar is the largest US military base in the Middle East. The facility hosts 10,000 troops; besides it serves as forward headquarters of the US CENTCOM, which operates to protect American interests in the Middle East, Central, and South Asia. Has this arrangement changed? No – it has not. But then, what’s wrong?
First, the role played by Washington thus far is imperative to mention. From its attempts at bolstering ties between the Arabs and Israel in the form of Abraham Accords, to giving Tel Aviv carte blanche to carry out military strikes in the region, the US has left Arab leaders second-guessing. They (may) have realized that the US is either incapable or unwilling to restrict, or at the very least, denounce Israel’s actions in the region.
Secondly, the relative decline of American power, coupled with erratic decision-making at the top, and the consequent wariness towards US as a reliable partner, is pushing its traditional allies across the globe, to explore other potential arrangements and options. Riyadh’s move towards a mutual security arrangement with Islamabad can, and should, be understood in the aforementioned context. Pakistan is the strongest nuclear armed military power in the Muslim world, one capable of providing the Kingdom what it deems necessary for its security.
The same logic applies to Pakistan. With the burgeoning multipolarity, Islamabad is maximizing its diplomatic outreach. The SMDA is being touted as a major foreign policy triumph for Islamabad, particularly in the context of the military confrontation of May between India and Pakistan.
Close partnership with the Kingdom gives Pakistan a host of multifaceted opportunities. Where both parties aspire to maximize their security in the form of a collective response to aggression, as the agreement reads “attack against one shall be considered attack against both”, it is safe to assume that this would enable Pakistan to sustain a longer military confrontation against any aggressor, beyond the obvious India, due to the Kingdom’s economic capacity i.e. finance and oil (although the details of the agreement are not public yet). Moreover, Islamabad can leverage this arrangement to enhance its economic ties with the Kingdom.
This arrangement is further complicated by the challenges it can create for Pakistan. Although, Foreign Office Spokesperson Ambassador Shafqat Ali Khan made it clear that the recently signed mutual defence agreement is not “directed against any third country”, prima facie it points to certain actors i.e., Israel, India, and Iran.
If Israel ever attacks the Kingdom, which is very unlikely, will Pakistan join the military retaliation (if there is any) against another nuclear armed country? It’s a complex scenario as it sets a precedent for extended deterrence. Where will Pakistan stand if there is a military confrontation between archrivals Iran and Saudi Arabia? Pakistan cannot afford being party to this conflict, especially given the intricate regional geopolitical landscape. What about the most likely scenario of Houthis attacking an oil refinery in the Kingdom?
Let’s imagine that the alliance bolsters Pakistan’s ability to withstand a longer military confrontation with India, backed by Saudi economic resources, or deters future misadventures by India. What remains to be known is if the Kingdom will allow its military resources to be used against India or use its economic might as a weapon, when the KSA is India’s fifth largest trading partner with USD 41.88 billion in annual trade.
The agreement is likened to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which outlines the principle of collective defence. It is important to note here that Article 5 is partially misunderstood and misquoted. The Article does not impose a condition on the member states to deploy military resources in case of an armed attack against any member of the treaty. However, it obligates each member to ‘such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.’ If there is a similar commitment between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, its utility will be diluted by geopolitical realities and economic relations.
The agreement has been signed with all guns blazing amidst a precarious security situation in the Middle East and South Asia. However, the questions raised above will have to wait for answers. Dr. Muhammad Ali Ehsan rightly said in his latest note on the subject, “For Pakistan, it is the spring season of geopolitics, and I hope it takes all the right decisions to blossom as a nation state.”
