AT PENPOINT
The Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Military Agreement really does not create any new commitments between the two countries, but it represents a reversion for Pakistan to a bygone era, when it was part of CENTO, and earlier SEATO. It was allied to the USA during the Afghan Jihad, but never hosted any US forces, cooperation being limited to increased training and courses, as well as supply of military equipment to all three Pakistani services. The USA was provided with the Jacobabad Air Base during the anti-Taliban campaign, but no US forces joined Pakistan in any combat operations. Indeed, the only interaction was confrontational, when US helicopter gunships fired on Pakistani positions at Salala.
The agreement has not evoked much reaction in Pakistan because it is reasonably clear that it does not represent a departure. However, it has caused consternation in India, as well as in Israel, though more in the former than the latter. India’s concern does not seem to be so much directed at the military prowess of Saudi Arabia as against what it says about the Indian efforts to create a close relationship.
The most recent high point was the visit there in 2013 by Indian PM Narendra Modi. Saudi Arabia is one of India’s biggest suppliers of oil. Also, Saudi Arabia is one of Pakistan’s most consistent friends, and a member of the Organization’s Contact Group on Kashmir; thus making it more malleable to Indian interests would mean an undermining of Pakistan and its support for the Kashmir cause.
Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman Shafqat Ali Khan has said the agreement is not directed against any country. That is an impossibility for a military agreement, as opposed to any other agreement. A trade agreement between two countries may have implications for another, but it need not be directed at it. However, even if a military agreement is for the sale of equipment, that has to be used against another. The supplier may specify that the equipment is not to be used against a third party. That the buyer may ignore that in the event of conflict is almost inevitable. This was shown by the 1965 Indo-Pak War, when Pakistan ignored the promise the USA had extracted not to use the equipment it supplied against India.
However, India has little reason to fear the products of the Saudi defence industry. While Pakistan is no industrial giant, its defence industry makes it likelier that Saudi Arabia will buy Pakistani products for its armed forces. However, there would arise the question of interoperability of equipment. This is the first time that two countries which import arms have entered into a defence equipment. Arms suppliers might have reservations. While Pakistan is not under any embargo, there might be a problem for Saudi Arabia, which uses a lot of US-made equipment, and which has committed to buy more.
The method employed by NATO was to jointly develop things like fighter planes. Members already imported arms from one another. What to speak of arms manufacturing potential, it Coming back to the question of possible opponents, while those entering into the agreement may specify potential opponents against which they will not act. Saudi Arabia may tell Pakistan that it will not enter into any conflict with India, and Pakistan may specify Iran.
That might well prevent another widely-expressed fear from occurring, of Pakistan extending its nuclear umbrella over Saudi Arabia. Pakistan may have a nuclear bomb, but that does not mean it can give anyone a nuclear umbrella. In fact, it cannot give itself one. A nuclear umbrella means a readiness and an ability to launch a nuclear attack against all comers. That means the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles, which it doesn’t have, and of a second-strike capability guaranteed by nuclear submarines, which it also doesn’t have. Pakistan has always said that its nuclear weapon is a deterrent against India, and that is correct. In the unlikely event of India attacking Saudi Arabia, Pakistan could launch a nuclear strike against India. It explicitly has reserved the right to first use against India, but does this extend to any other state?
The uncomfortable fact remains that when the bullets begin to fly, or the bombs to fall, mutual defence pacts fly out of the window, and countries make decisions based on national interests.
The only nuclear state with a remote chance of attacking Saudi Arabia is Israel. Pakistan has repeatedly denied that it has any intention of using its nuclear weapon against Israel.
And how about Iran? Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, but it is not all that far from developing one despite the June bombings of its main nuclear sites by Israel and the USA.
While a special summit was held for Qatar, the purpose of the negotiations there, the conflict in Gaza, continued, and indeed stepped up a notch. With over 65,000 people killed in Gaza since October 2023, there are bound to be questions about the purpose of the Agreement. It is clearly not meant to protect the Palestinians.
One of the useful explanations has been the need to protect the Holy Places. Pakistan can only retaliate, not prevent. Therefore, it should be realized that Saudi Arabia may be handing the security of the ruling dynasty to Pakistan, or rather taking it out of US hands. It is going to be important to see what happens to the US presence in Saudi Arabia of about 5000 Air Force personnel at Prince Sultan Air Base.
The pecedent of the First Gulf War is instructive. Pakistan already had troops in Saudi Arabia, but did not allow them to be use to help in the liberation of Kuwait, which had been invaded
Pakistan may end up underwriting the security of the entire Gulf, as the possibility has been left open for further agreements in the Gulf. Is the USA being ousted, and China being brought in, through Pakistan? Only time will tell. The USA will not relinquish its stamping ground so easily, though it might see a way to giving up, now that the end of the bera of oil, while still far distant, is discernible on the horizon.
However, the Gulf monarchies, Saudi Arabia included, are more interested in the survival of their dynasties, rather than superpower politics. In the same way, Pakistan is more interested in its national interest than it. The precedent for this agreement was the Triple Entente, before World War I, which consisted of the UK, France and Russia. There were first a number of agreements in 1904, mostly over colonial questions, and then conversations between the respective general staffs. These led to an understanding that the UK would provide an expeditionary force of six infantry divisions and five cavalry brigades. By December 1918, the BEF had grown to two Armies and a cavalry corp.
World War I illustrates the problem with military agreements. Italy was part of the Triple Alliance, along with Germany and Austro-Hungary, but did not join in the August/September
Declarations of war. It should be remembered that, even if there is a permanent Secretariat, as NATO maintains, war requires bilateral declarations. Italy hung back until 1915, when it declared war on Austro-Hundary alone.
Pakistan itself has experience of the unreliability of military agreements, as its membership of CENTO and SEATO, which were formal defence pacts, did not bring in any members on its side in neither the 1965 nor 1971 Wars. True, the pacts were meant to be against the USSR, but India has in 1971 signed a Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the USSR, as Germany had done in 1939, just before it set off World War II.
The uncomfortable fact remains that when the bullets begin to fly, or the bombs to fall, mutual defence pacts fly out of the window, and countries make decisions based on national interests.
