The trilateral Mecca security pact between Saudi Arabia (KSA), Turkey, and Pakistan wasn't really a bolt from the blue. For months, there had been confabulations between these three countries and Egypt, and the air was abuzz with a new regional security arrangement that was being worked out. This new arrangement is in addition to the bilateral Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) between the Saudis and Pakistan. The reaction in India to this new strategic realignment in West Asia has swung between two extremes. While some analysts see it as a very negative development with serious strategic implications for India's security, others have expressed deep scepticism about this arrangement working effectively, if at all. Both sides of the argument have made valid observations in support of their assessment of the Mecca Pact. But regardless of which assessment proves accurate, India cannot afford to ignore, much less dismiss, this realignment of two enemy countries (Pakistan and Turkey) with a third friendly country (Saudi Arabia); But nor does India need to get flustered over it. What India needs is a strategy that will not only counter the negative aspects of the Mecca alliance if it works on the ground but also improve its strategic space if the sceptics of the Mecca Pact prove correct.
Unsteady Ground
While the pact is an outcome of a breakdown of the security architecture that has prevailed in the region over the last 100 years, it is rather premature to imagine whether this alliance is laying the foundation on which a new regional security framework will be built. To call the Mecca Pact an "Islamic NATO" or equate it with the Baghdad Pact (CENTO) is quite a stretch. Both those alliances were led by a dominant power, the US. There is no such power that provides the necessary ballast to the Mecca Pact. If anything, traditional rivalries between Turkey and Saudi Arabia haven't entirely been resolved. Just a few years ago, Erdogan was viciously twisting the knife into the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) over the Khashoggi killing. That they subsequently papered over their differences means very little, because in this region, all alliances are temporary and can change virtually overnight. The third leg of the stool, Pakistan, is in it for the money, naturally. Hardly a new NATO - which, by the way, is in total disarray itself.
A lot is being made about "collective deterrence against any act of aggression, and...any armed attack against any one of the three States shall be regarded as an attack against them all". But there is no clarity about what this really means. While Article 5 of the NATO agreement defines how the collective defense will kick in, the Mecca Pact has kept the agreement secret. Is this to keep some wiggle room for the signatory countries to opt out of this collective defense clause? Or is the secrecy being kept because the obligations enjoined on each country in the event collective defense is invoked are different and could thus evoke sharp opposition and criticism? In other words, the Saudis, who were unable to defend themselves against Iranian or Houthi attacks, cannot realistically be expected to send in their forces for the defence of Pakistan. Speaking of Houthis, within a few hours of the Mecca Pact, the Houthis fired missiles on Saudi Arabia, and there wasn't even a squeak from the new and much-vaunted security partners of the Saudis. Perhaps Saudi obligation under the pact will be limited to giving money, diplomatic and political support to Pakistan to fight its own war. But what is expected of the Pakistanis? So far, at least, they haven't really delivered on their commitments to Saudi Arabia. Also, why would Turkey, which is a member of NATO, need Pakistan and the Saudis to come to its aid in the event of an attack?
A Reality Check
While it can be argued that these three countries have militaries with different offensive and defensive capabilities, none of them has the capacity and capability required for out-of-area operations of the kind that the US possesses. Even a significant power like China would be hamstrung in conducting and sustaining operations outside its immediate neighbourhood. Given their current capabilities, for any of these countries to marshal troops to go to another country's aid and fight its wars is a bit far-fetched. It is also not clear if the Mecca Pact is a return to the kind of alliances that existed in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when a bunch of countries, mostly in Europe, would enter into wars on behalf of their alliance partners. In this day and age, it is difficult to imagine that a country will jump into a full-blown war on behalf of another country and get its soldiers killed and its territory targeted. It is no longer about going to faraway lands to fight wars while the homeland remains secure and untouched. With missiles and drones, no place is beyond reach.
One thing that Iran has demonstrated is that widening the war and possessing the ability to target allies of its enemy hundreds and thousands of miles away is quite an effective deterrence. This was one reason why, despite having entered into the SMDA with Saudi Aranoa, Pakistan did not come to the latter's defence and preferred to assist through diplomacy, and some posturing. In the event of a conflict between India and Pakistan, what are the chances that either Saudi Arabia or Turkey will send troops or even other equipment to Pakistan? Also, if they participate in the conflict, can they expect not to be targeted by India? In any case, given the quite robust and mutually beneficial economic relationship between Saudi Arabia and India, will the former risk it all for the sake of Pakistan, or is this only a one-way security pact where Pakistan is expected to provide 'guard duty' in return for some money thrown its way?
The Limitations Of Each
Finally, while it is all very well to have pretensions of becoming a net security provider in the region, the kind of military and economic strength required to play this role simply doesn't exist in all three countries, individually and collectively. Countries can play the role of a net security provider only if they have both the military muscle and economic strength to discharge this role. They do it not to earn revenue by providing security services, but to protect their vital strategic and economic interests in the region. Both Pakistan and Turkey are trying to turn the definition of a 'net security provider' on its head. In any case, if a hyperpower like the US suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Iran, what are the chances that this trilateral alliance will be able to take on the Islamic Republic?
Be that as it may, the pact appears to be more of a hedging strategy by the three countries, each of which is trying to extract from it what it wants, which isn't necessarily compatible with what the others want. For instance, Pakistan hopes to monetise this alliance and dig itself out of the hole it finds its economy in, and also get Saudi and Turkish support at the diplomatic and political level to solve its enduring poly-crisis. The Saudis are looking for military support after being exposed to attacks by Iran and seeing the US' failure to defend them. The Turks see an opportunity to find markets for their defence industry, paid for by Saudi petrodollars. In addition, Turkey is making a play for acquiring greater influence in Islamic politics and, perhaps, regaining its leadership of the Islamic world as its pre-eminent technological power, something that is hardly going to be palatable for the Saudis, or, for that matter, Iran.
Scepticism about the efficacy of this tripartite alliance is, therefore, understandable. But to ignore or dismiss this development would be a mistake of Himalayan proportions. That the security environment in the West Asian region has been shattered is a no-brainer. Whether or not the Mecca alliance works, the fact remains that countries of the region are rebalancing and looking for reliable security partnerships. India cannot afford to be a bystander because this is a region in which it has vital security and economic interests. It cannot afford not to be a player. If India's policy is to smugly sit on the sidelines and wait for arrangements like the Mecca Pact to collapse, then it betrays a strategic myopia of the worst kind. Because if by some chance this arrangement or some other similar arrangement works, India will be left holding the can.
Yet, India Shouldn't Unerplay This
There is no gainsaying that India's security environment has been badly muddied in recent months. The strategic relationship with the US is a dead horse. Regardless of whether the Mecca Pact happened with US blessing or because the American system is so broken that it is run on the whims and fancies of one individual, and all institutional decision- and policy-making has been flushed down the toilet, India has to rethink its strategic options. The situation becomes even more fraught if the China factor is added to the developments in the region. The fact is that if Pakistan gets access to Saudi funding and advanced European and American technology via Turkey, it will pose a serious challenge to India's security. Of course, Pakistan's internal weaknesses will also remain a factor of some comfort for India, but to base our strategy on this will be a magnificent folly.
India must shed its hesitation to get into deeper alliance arrangements with regional partners who are reliable and trustworthy, and with whom there are mutual economic, strategic, and security interests aligned. Many Gulf states had approached India in the past for treaty arrangements, but India has been somewhat chary. Given the changing security scenario, India needs to rethink its strategic options and build new alliances that can become a counter to the Mecca Pact. Not only must India work towards multilateral arrangements, but it should also re-energise bilateral security partnerships with important partners like the UAE, Israel, Greece, Cyprus, Armenia, etc. At the same time, India must remain engaged with Iran, which is emerging as the regional hegemon. This will not be an easy task, but this is exactly what skillful diplomacy demands. About time that Indian diplomats get off their hobby horse of thinking that diplomacy is all about 'engaging' with enemies like Pakistan. Diplomacy is nothing if it is not about advancing India's interests, and these will not be advanced by engaging wth rogue states like Turkey and Pakistan, but rather by building robust alliances with enemies of our enemies. This is the strategy that will hold us in good stead, regardless of whether the Mecca pact survives or collapses under its own contradictions.
(The author is a Senior Fellow at ORF)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
