Nuclear devices are undoubtedly weapons of mass destruction, and even thinking about their impact sends a shudder through the nerves. But at the same time, they are also a stabilising tool in the maintenance of peace as they act as a deterrent against the aggressive intentions of any country contemplating threatening the security of another country. The USA, which not only developed the nuclear bomb but also used it against Japan, causing unimaginable death and destruction in two of its cities, was confident that the latter did not have the matching capability to respond in the same manner.
The role of nuclear weapons as a deterrent was amply manifested during the Cold War years, when the USA and Russia, in spite of being staunch enemies of each other, did not engage in direct military confrontation, though they fought proxy wars against each other, because they were aware of the mutual destruction that would have occurred had they engaged in direct attacks against each other.
Pakistan has genuine concerns about the safety of the Holy shrines in Saudi Arabia and would not hesitate to defend them against any attack.
My considered view is that nuclear weapons should be viewed more as a peace-promoting phenomenon. The opposition by the USA and other European nuclear states to the development of nuclear weapons by other states, simply put, is a ploy to maintain their monopoly on these weapons and blackmail or coerce smaller nations to toe their line of action on global issues. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was brought as a tool to advance this objective.
Now coming to the situation in the Middle East at the moment particularly the unhindered genocide of Palestinian in Gaza and Israeli attacks on other states such as Iran, Qatar, Lebanon and Syria in violation of the international law as well as UN resolutions and calls by the international community, is a ranting proof of the fact that both Israel and USA are hell-bent to impose a solution of their own choice. Both are nuclear powers using their military might with impunity, knowing that their target countries were not capable of matching retaliation. Might is right, but it requires being proven wrong with equal intensity and capability by those against whom it is employed.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement signed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that leaves room for other states to join, creating an extended security framework, is a worthwhile project in view of the geopolitical volatility in the Middle East and South Asia. The pact heralds a new era of strategic synergy, empowering Pakistan to strengthen its military capabilities and economic stability while solidifying its pivotal role in regional security dynamics. It also imparts a sense of security to Saudi Arabia.
But it is clearly a defensive arrangement to deter any would-be aggressor from committing any indiscretion against the signatories to the Agreement. Those trying to prefer the narrative that Pakistan may well hand over its nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia are conveniently neglecting the fact that Pakistan has an unblemished record as a responsible nuclear state. As per Pakistani Nuclear doctrine, its nuclear weapons are meant as a deterrent. Any country not contemplating aggression against them need not worry.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have strong defence ties since 1960 and are great friends of each other. Pakistan has genuine concerns about the safety of the Holy shrines in Saudi Arabia and would not hesitate to defend them against any attack. Some Pakistani troops are already stationed in Saudi Arabia for that purpose.
The factors that have contributed to sealing this formal deal between the two countries include Pakistan’s much-improved defence capabilities and its strengthened military profile after the military clash with India. Further, in the backdrop of the Israeli attack on Qatar, the Saudis probably also rightly felt that it was a now-or-never opportunity for a formal defence pact with Pakistan to ensure the safety of the Kingdom, as they could not rely on the security cover provided by the USA in case Israel commits any aggression or tries to expand the conflict. It is also the outcome of unprecedented institutional understanding in the country, especially the level of trust between the country’s political and military leadership, which acted as a catalyst in concluding the pact, being a confidence-inspiring factor for Saudi Arabia. It is understood that Field Marshal Asim Munir also played a pivotal role in his personal capacity to clinch the deal for which he deserves appreciation and the gratitude of the nation.
The political and defence analysts rightly believe that, as suggested by Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif during his speech at the Doha summit, the permeating security situation necessitates an alliance between the Muslim and Arab countries on NATO lines, which will surely strengthen the security of all states and act as a harbinger of peace in the volatile regions. The enemies of peace would think twice before committing any aggression against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other members who join the pact later.
The dilemma of the Muslim world is that although they have religious solidarity, they lack it politically. My view is that all the Muslim Countries must also form an economic block and increasingly shift their trade activities within the countries of the union, lessening their dependence on Western countries. In case of any precarious situation arising out of irresponsible actions of Israel, the USA and its allies, the oil-producing countries may also use oil as a weapon against them, like they did in 1973. However, the focus of the alliance preferably should be on maintaining cordial relations with the European Union and the USA while pursuing the objectives of the alliance if it comes about as envisaged.
The writer is a former diplomat and freelance columnist.