Pakistan’s response to Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia puts credibility of Mecca Pact under scrutiny
Advertisement
New Delhi, Sep 17 : The latest Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia have exposed a clear contradiction in Pakistan’s position. Islamabad has invoked collective defence but has refrained from making any commitment to military action, apparently seeking to protect its strategic relationship with Riyadh while keeping itself out of another regional war, a report has stated.
It noted that Pakistan’s response to Houthi strikes has laid bare a fundamental question over the practical value of the Mecca Pact: whether Islamabad is prepared to act when the security of a treaty partner comes under direct threat.
On August 7, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, under which “any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all.”
“For an agreement presented around the principle that an attack on one member should concern all members, Pakistan’s conduct has so far been notably cautious. Islamabad has condemned the attacks, warned the Houthis that aggression against Saudi Arabia could invoke the pact, and reaffirmed its support for Riyadh. But it has also made clear that no military response is currently under discussion,” according to a report in ‘The Earth News’.
On September 8, Pakistan warned the Houthis that an attack on Saudi Arabia could bring the Mecca Pact’s collective-defence provision into play. But its subsequent clarification that military action was not being discussed raised questions about how far that collective-security commitment extends in practice, the report noted.
“That qualification has exposed the central ambiguity surrounding the arrangement. If the pact is primarily a political commitment, Islamabad’s response is consistent with a conventional diplomatic posture. If it is intended to function as a genuine collective-defence mechanism, however, the absence of any announced military contribution raises questions about how the commitment would work during a serious conflict,” it added.
For Islamabad, the report said, staying away from military involvement may serve its immediate national interests. But it also raises a fundamental question about the credibility of a collective-defence commitment when a member comes under direct attack.
“The more expansive the language of collective defence, the greater the expectation that members will demonstrate both the capability and willingness to act when another member is threatened. Diplomatic condemnation alone cannot establish that credibility. The immediate crisis may pass without requiring Pakistan to make that choice. But the question raised by it will remain: when collective security becomes a real military obligation rather than a political declaration, where exactly does Pakistan draw the line?” the report asked.
“Until that question has a clearer answer, the Mecca Pact remains stronger as a framework for political and defence alignment than as a demonstrated collective-security guarantee,” it stated.
It noted that Pakistan’s response to Houthi strikes has laid bare a fundamental question over the practical value of the Mecca Pact: whether Islamabad is prepared to act when the security of a treaty partner comes under direct threat.
On August 7, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, under which “any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all.”
“For an agreement presented around the principle that an attack on one member should concern all members, Pakistan’s conduct has so far been notably cautious. Islamabad has condemned the attacks, warned the Houthis that aggression against Saudi Arabia could invoke the pact, and reaffirmed its support for Riyadh. But it has also made clear that no military response is currently under discussion,” according to a report in ‘The Earth News’.
On September 8, Pakistan warned the Houthis that an attack on Saudi Arabia could bring the Mecca Pact’s collective-defence provision into play. But its subsequent clarification that military action was not being discussed raised questions about how far that collective-security commitment extends in practice, the report noted.
“That qualification has exposed the central ambiguity surrounding the arrangement. If the pact is primarily a political commitment, Islamabad’s response is consistent with a conventional diplomatic posture. If it is intended to function as a genuine collective-defence mechanism, however, the absence of any announced military contribution raises questions about how the commitment would work during a serious conflict,” it added.
For Islamabad, the report said, staying away from military involvement may serve its immediate national interests. But it also raises a fundamental question about the credibility of a collective-defence commitment when a member comes under direct attack.
“The more expansive the language of collective defence, the greater the expectation that members will demonstrate both the capability and willingness to act when another member is threatened. Diplomatic condemnation alone cannot establish that credibility. The immediate crisis may pass without requiring Pakistan to make that choice. But the question raised by it will remain: when collective security becomes a real military obligation rather than a political declaration, where exactly does Pakistan draw the line?” the report asked.
“Until that question has a clearer answer, the Mecca Pact remains stronger as a framework for political and defence alignment than as a demonstrated collective-security guarantee,” it stated.
Advertisement
Note: The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the ap7am team.