KAARCHI: A recent article in Foreign Policy Magazine has examined the implications of the defence pact signed between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia last week, arguing that the agreement could alter the strategic balance in South Asia and further strain already fraught India-Pakistan ties.
Titled ‘What the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Pact Means for South Asia’, the piece by columnist Sumit Ganguly says the deal provides for mutual security guarantees and comes at a particularly sensitive time. “The agreement is likely to have ramifications for South Asia, as it comes at a particularly fraught moment in the region”, he writes.
The article recalls that after the May Pak-India conflict, Indian officials “were piqued when US President Donald Trump hosted Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir at the White House”, while also taking “umbrage over Trump’s claim that he played a pivotal role in defusing the conflict and bringing about a cease-fire.” According to Ganguly, India-Pakistan relations “are now at their lowest ebb in decades, and the new pact is likely to cause further distress in New Delhi”.
Reviewing the history of Pakistan-Saudi ties, Ganguly notes that the two countries share “a long-shared ideological affinity” with significant Sunni Muslim populations and that the relationship “crystallized over the years” from the 1970s onwards. Both sides “aimed to raise the costs to the Soviet Union of its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan”, he writes, with Saudi Arabia providing financial assistance to Pakistan and the US under Ronald Reagan backing the war effort. The article stresses that Pakistan’s “endemic economic woes ensured that it kept turning to Saudi Arabia for financial assistance”, giving Riyadh “considerable influence in Pakistan’s politics”. Ganguly calls the new pact “the logical culmination of a cordial relationship based on shared beliefs and mutual convenience”.
On why the deal was signed now, he suggests the immediate trigger may have been “the Israeli airstrike targeting Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, on Sept 9”, arguing that the strike “rankled the political leadership in Islamabad and Riyadh”, both of whom support the Palestinian cause.
The article goes further to suggest that the defence agreement could carry a nuclear dimension. “The pact means that Pakistan, as a nuclear-armed state with ballistic missiles in its arsenal, can now extend its nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia. Such a possibility should not be dismissed as a fantasy”, Ganguly writes, recalling Saudi Arabia’s past economic assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear programme. He adds Iran to the mix, claiming that “Today, a formal defense agreement with a nuclear state may grant Riyadh a modicum of reassurance against an intransigent Tehran”. China’s role is also highlighted, with Ganguly arguing that Beijing “will try to ensure that this new security nexus does not diminish its influence in Pakistan”, likely by ramping up military supplies and infrastructure investments. He notes that Pakistan “relied on Chinese-made weapons during the May conflict with India”.
According to him, this, in turn, is likely to heighten vigilance in India. “Pakistan has a long-standing relationship with China, has found new warmth with the United States under Trump, and now has struck a defense agreement with Saudi Arabia. Islamabad has two allies with deep pockets and suddenly one with which it enjoys a formal security accord”, the article observes.
Ganguly also claims that the pact could embolden Pakistan’s military leadership and make it “even more risk-tolerant”.
On the Indian side, the article says that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “may hesitate to quickly resort to force out of fears of horizontal escalation” but that domestic political pressure could still push him toward retaliation.
Ganguly concludes that the pact could undermine the “ragged stability” that has characterised India-Pakistan relations since their nuclearisation in 1998, warning that Pakistan’s success in the May conflict, coupled with what he says is a willingness to run risks, could lead to what security theorist Thomas Schelling termed “manipulating the shared risk of war” -- pushing adversaries to the brink in the expectation that they will back down.
Further on the Indian fears he says: “An emboldened and more risk-taking Pakistani leadership may test India’s restraint in a future crisis”.