A recent joint defense agreement signed in Mecca by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey, which includes a NATO-like provision for mutual defense, has sparked debate regarding its regional implications. Former UK minister Rory Stewart, speaking in a podcast, indicated that Saudi Arabia would likely be unwilling to engage in a conflict with India, despite its new alliance with Pakistan.
Implications for India-Pakistan Conflict
Stewart, a former UK secretary under David Cameron and Theresa May, highlighted the critical question of how the new Saudi-Pakistan-Turkey pact would function in a potential conflict between India and Pakistan. He stated, “Saudi's unlikely to want to be drawn into a war with India.” This perspective underscores the complex geopolitical landscape and the varying interests of the allied nations.
British journalist Alastair Campbell noted that Indian media outlets have described the new arrangement using terms like “Islamic NATO” or “Sunni NATO.” However, Campbell also raised doubts about Pakistan's willingness to act as a nuclear protector for Saudi Arabia or Turkey, questioning the practical commitment of all parties if fighting were to erupt between India and Pakistan.
“If, let's say, there was another fight between India and Pakistan, are the Saudis meant to get involved? Are the Turks meant to get involved?” Campbell queried, pointing to the lack of intervention in current regional flare-ups as a sign of potential doubt within the alliance.
US Concerns and Command Control
Stewart also addressed the US perspective, dismissing any notion that the Saudi-Pakistan-Turkey pact represents “burden sharing” with Washington. He warned that such an alliance could lead to a loss of US command and control in the region, arguing that the new arrangement lacks “US imprint, coordination or strategy at all.” This lack of integrated US oversight, he suggested, should be a significant concern for Washington.
Previously, the US military, particularly US Central Command, played a crucial coordinating role with regional governments. The absence of this US involvement in the new pact marks a significant shift in regional security dynamics.
Alliance Structure and Internal Differences
The former minister emphasized that the new alliance currently lacks the deep military integration characteristic of NATO, which boasts sophisticated systems and headquarters like SHAPE to coordinate troops, weapons, and priorities under a unified command structure. Stewart noted, “So far, we're not seeing any of that really out of the Saudi, Pakistan, Turkey thing.”
Furthermore, internal differences among the three nations could pose challenges. Turkey and Pakistan have historically maintained a more accommodating stance towards Iran compared to Saudi Arabia, which views Tehran as a primary regional rival. These divergent foreign policy positions could complicate unified action under the pact.
India's Measured Response
Campbell observed that the Indian government has reacted cautiously to the new defense pact, contrasting its “playing it down a bit” with the more dramatic descriptions in Indian media. This restrained response from New Delhi appears to signal that India does not interpret the agreement as Saudi Arabia abandoning its relationship with India. “So they (Indians) didn't inflame it. They didn't, in a way, give Pakistan what they probably wanted,” Campbell concluded.