Joint Defense Agreement: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, news & updates

[_Arabia_]

Anyway this alliance should create economic initiatives and incentives (economic growth and connectivity is the main driver behind nation states and their relationship/interests) first (like other successful or partially successful organizations - EU for example). That naturally limits hostility and encourages healthy competition.

The problem with this alliance as I see it is that there is a large economic disparity between KSA/Turkiye on one hand and Pakistan on the other.

Some kind of shared agenda/motivation needs to occur for this alliance to not end up like the countless of other Muslim alliances in modern history that sounded good on paper but amounted to little in practice.

I would start with economic interconnectivity (mutually beneficial) and work towards industrial/scientific/resource/mineral/renewable/energy cooperation and simultaneously the military angle.

If a success expand with other nations who are willing to contribute and who share the same overall visions and agendas of the region.

Each state x or y will always have their strengths and weaknesses but some kind of overall agenda/goal should be made clear.

One simple thing could be that each of the 3 nations (governments) are against states within the state (proxies) who are undermining nation state x or y. Pakistan faces several internal insurgencies so that should be easy to agree on. Turkiye had a decade old problem with the Kurds (militant) and a political problem in terms of certain Kurdish (nationalist) demands.

KSA is against proxies/non-state actors in next door Arab countries (Yemen, Iraq, Sudan etc.) for obvious reasons.

So there is a commonality there.

I don't think that sect (as some trolls claim) plays any role whatsoever in this alliance.

If anything, this alliance (if it is against anybody) is mostly aimed at Israel and by extension the US/West because they are the only ones (within the Muslim world at least) that can challenge this alliance if successful in the region. Not including China here as they have good/close ties with all 3.

Iran nowadays (current regime) is a failed state by all accounts and mostly an annoyance rather than some imaginary existential threat. Nobody is interested in some permanent war or large-scale war with them - just sane/relatively normal relations (neighborly) as pre-1979. Could/should be possible down the road.

But even if it is not aimed at anybody in specific (likely the case) it is good that leaderships understands that the region needs to unite in some form or another to counter mutual challenges.

It is also pretty self-evident that regions develop whenever there is peace and stability and some kind of cooperation and connectivity whether political, economic (mostly the case and driver nowadays as I wrote) so any step towards that is a positive step.

I don't think predicting x or y makes much sense either as the world is constantly changing (the changes that KSA has underwent in the past 10 years are gigantic in almost every field and no sane local would have believed even 10% of it 10 years ago) but the jury is out and it will be out for many years to come. So let us see and hope for the best.

 

[Sinan]

Anyway this alliance should create economic initiatives and incentives (economic growth and connectivity is the main driver behind nation states and their relationship/interests) first (like other successful or partially successful organizations - EU for example). That naturally limits hostility and encourages healthy competition.

The problem with this alliance as I see it is that there is a large economic disparity between KSA/Turkiye on one hand and Pakistan on the other.

Some kind of shared agenda/motivation needs to occur for this alliance to not end up like the countless of other Muslim alliances in modern history that sounded good on paper but amounted to little in practice.

I would start with economic interconnectivity (mutually beneficial) and work towards industrial/scientific/resource/mineral/renewable/energy cooperation and simultaneously the military angle.

If a success expand with other nations who are willing to contribute and who share the same overall visions and agendas of the region.

Each state x or y will always have their strengths and weaknesses but some kind of overall agenda/goal should be made clear.

One simple thing could be that each of the 3 nations (governments) are against states within the state (proxies) who are undermining nation state x or y. Pakistan faces several internal insurgencies so that should be easy to agree on. Turkiye had a decade old problem with the Kurds (militant) and a political problem in terms of certain Kurdish (nationalist) demands.

KSA is against proxies/non-state actors in next door Arab countries (Yemen, Iraq, Sudan etc.) for obvious reasons.

So there is a commonality there.

I don't think that sect (as some trolls claim) plays any role whatsoever in this alliance.

If anything, this alliance (if it is against anybody) is mostly aimed at Israel and by extension the US/West because they are the only ones (within the Muslim world at least) that can challenge this alliance if successful in the region. Not including China here as they have good/close ties with all 3.

Iran nowadays (current regime) is a failed state by all accounts and mostly an annoyance rather than some imaginary existential threat. Nobody is interested in some permanent war or large-scale war with them - just sane/relatively normal relations (neighborly) as pre-1979. Could/should be possible down the road.

But even if it is not aimed at anybody in specific (likely the case) it is good that leaderships understands that the region needs to unite in some form or another to counter mutual challenges.

It is also pretty self-evident that regions develop whenever there is peace and stability and some kind of cooperation and connectivity whether political, economic (mostly the case and driver nowadays as I wrote) so any step towards that is a positive step.

I don't think predicting x or y makes much sense either as the world is constantly changing (the changes that KSA has underwent in the past 10 years are gigantic in almost every field and no sane local would have believed even 10% of it 10 years ago) but the jury is out and it will be out for many years to come. So let us see and hope for the best.

Good but i think there is a missing part.

Hakan Fidan recently said that security comes first: secure and stabilize the region, make it investable, and then build economic connectivity and wealth generation.

So I see it more as:

Security → Stability → Investment → Connectivity → Economic integration

Once countries have major economic interests in each other, that economic interdependence itself becomes another incentive to maintain peace and stability.

In that sense, the Turkey–Saudi–Pakistan cooperation could become much more than a defense agreement. The military/security side could be the foundation for a much broader economic and strategic partnership.

That's probably the more realistic way to build a lasting regional bloc rather than creating another alliance that looks good on paper but achieves little in practice.

 

[Ali_Baba]

Many here(in Greece)pointed out that Turkey hurried to sign the Treaty and a few days later,the Houthis started attacks against the Saudis after a long time again. So the question was,aren't they supposed to get involved against the Houthis now? Did Erdogan make a mistake by rushing to do this? Personally(and I think the majority here)don't think Turkey will ever get involved in anything they don't want to. No Saudi or Pakistani will drag them in a war they don't want to participate. Then again,such a treaty,what exactly does it mean,how does it work? Does than mean Saudis will go to war against Greece and Cyprus and attack NATO and EU countries? Will Pakistanis go against Iran for the sake of Saudi Arabia? Will the Saudis mess with Israelis if there's a flare up over Syria?

It's silly. If they had said cooperation in this and this,ok. But clauses like "an attack on one's soil will be considered an attack on all three" is ridiculous. This isn't the Entente.

I think it would be dangerous for people to think or assume that the defense pact does not NATO article 5 like guarantees of mutual self defence. Do I see, Pakistan or Saudi support Türkiye kinetically against Greece if Greece attacks Türkiye. Yes I do. It is for one simple reason, Pakistan will want the pact to be active and real against India, and Saudi will want it for Israel, all 3 countries for their own reasons need the pact to be real and effective as a deterrence and they will therefore demonstrate that.

Everyone who is affected by the pact, is trying very hard to try and downplay the pact as the reality of the pact being real is becoming uncomfortable for them.

This pact is the antidote to the Hexagon alliance...

Israel may well try and test the pact, lets see.

 

[_Arabia_]

Good but i think there is a missing part.

Hakan Fidan recently said that security comes first: secure and stabilize the region, make it investable, and then build economic connectivity and wealth generation.

So I see it more as:

Security → Stability → Investment → Connectivity → Economic integration

Once countries have major economic interests in each other, that economic interdependence itself becomes another incentive to maintain peace and stability.

In that sense, the Turkey–Saudi–Pakistan cooperation could become much more than a defense agreement. The military/security side could be the foundation for a much broader economic and strategic partnership.

That's probably the more realistic way to build a lasting regional bloc rather than creating another alliance that looks good on paper but achieves little in practice.

You are right, however I consider security and regional stability key foundation stones (the fundament) between any successful alliance that encompasses 3 nations spanning such a large geography.

Each nation has different internal dynamics and different foreign relation priorities.

Pakistan faces internal insurgencies and economic upheaval as well as an existential threat in India. As well as a hostile Afghanistan next door. Those are quite different priorities from those of Turkiye and KSA. Similarly we can make examples when it comes to KSA and Turkiye that are very different from Pakistan's main priorities.

My point was that this bloc/alliance, in order to succeed at all, needs to define the mutual interests of the alliance (I gave 1 example - non-state actors that I believe that all 3 can agree with, other is mutually beneficial economic ties that will expand across multiple sectors) - otherwise the alliance will diverge.

What made organizations like the EU successful initially was the divide in Europe between West and East (capitalism vs communism, USA/NATO vs USRR/Warsaw pact) as well as the wish to prevent another world war starting in Europe. Aside from certain commonalities across religion, culture, history etc. (which are all present in the Muslim world as well in a larger or smaller degree).

So IMO, I think that the alliance, if it wants to succeed and expand in the future, needs to define its goals and agenda for the overall region. What is its overall aim and ambitions etc. Not just between all 3 states.

Instead there is secrecy and we don't really know much other than security cooperation, military cooperation and economic cooperation - something that already existed before between all 3.

Anyway as I wrote, I consider this a positive thing and movement and in an ideal world everyone (as in every nation state) would just focus on internal growth and common trade/non-hostile cooperation and competition and move past petty differences.

It is just that I fear/I am skeptical that this might become another one in the list of promising alliances that did not really amount to much long-term.

But as I wrote times have changed and the world is moving faster than ever before so maybe I am just too pessimistic - could very well be the case but I think that it is legitimate to ask those questions. It is better than blind optimism or blind criticism as I have seen online.

 

[Ali_Baba]

It would be interesting to see how pact's cooperation framework develops for defense technology sharing/joint manufacturing.

One thing can be said, if this pact could have happened just a decade earlier, Pakistan and KSA would have benefited a lot more from Turkish MIC and ToT through partnerships in critical projects like medium and long range Air and missile defense, KAAN, high end UAVs, MBTs, missiles. But today Turks has reached critical phases in all those projects with their own funding and R&D works. Turkiye's Advanced defense electronics/subsystems (sensors, AESA radars, EOTS, mission systems, guidance solutions) and high end missiles are in mass production.

They are past the phase where they might needed foreign money to succeed in these endeavours. Of course, money/buy in fron partners can still be valuable as it would bring more revenue and help grow the industry even bigger.

It is very likely that, today ToT from Turkish side for high-end defense technology would be less than what many is expecting here. Nevertheless what comes and potential standardisation and compatibility work to whatever extent is still going to be immensely valuable.

The sad thing is that Türkiye offered cooperation at the beginning and Pakistan declined!

 

[Ali_Baba]

If Kemalist comes in power in Turkey this pact will evaporated.

Why should it be evaporated? It is a country to country mutual defense pact. We have multiple government changes in Europe, and NATO still exists.

 

[Sinan]

You are right, however I consider security and regional stability key foundation stones (the fundament) between any successful alliance that encompasses 3 nations spanning such a large geography.

Each nation has different internal dynamics and different foreign relation priorities.

Pakistan faces internal insurgencies and economic upheaval as well as an existential threat in India. As well as a hostile Afghanistan next door. Those are quite different priorities from those of Turkiye and KSA. Similarly we can make examples when it comes to KSA and Turkiye that are very different from Pakistan's main priorities.

My point was that this bloc/alliance, in order to succeed at all, needs to define the mutual interests of the alliance (I gave 1 example - non-state actors that I believe that all 3 can agree with, other is mutually beneficial economic ties that will expand across multiple sectors) - otherwise the alliance will diverge.

What made organizations like the EU successful initially was the divide in Europe between West and East (capitalism vs communism, USA/NATO vs USRR/Warsaw pact) as well as the wish to prevent another world war starting in Europe. Aside from certain commonalities across religion, culture, history etc. (which are all present in the Muslim world as well in a larger or smaller degree).

So IMO, I think that the alliance, if it wants to succeed and expand in the future, needs to define its goals and agenda for the overall region. What is its overall aim and ambitions etc. Not just between all 3 states.

Instead there is secrecy and we don't really know much other than security cooperation, military cooperation and economic cooperation - something that already existed before between all 3.

Anyway as I wrote, I consider this a positive thing and movement and in an ideal world everyone (as in every nation state) would just focus on internal growth and common trade/non-hostile cooperation and competition and move past petty differences.

It is just that I fear/I am skeptical that this might become another one in the list of promising alliances that did not really amount to much long-term.

But as I wrote times have changed and the world is moving faster than ever before so maybe I am just too pessimistic - could very well be the case but I think that it is legitimate to ask those questions. It is better than blind optimism or blind criticism as I have seen online.

I understand you, you are basically saying without having clear goals this alliance will stay at the paper and as of now, as public we don't know the goals if there is one because everything is being kept as secrecy. Furthermore there have been failed models before. You are right.

You might not remember you but months ago i wrote something to you.

Hakan Fidan changed that completely. As i listened to him, he basically says regional countries in the middle-east shouldn't compete over dominance but should co-operate. So, that they can take decisions for the region together that way they wouldn't wasting energy. Seems like he wants to create a loose alliance with Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and other smaller countries in the region will follow these countries.

We begin to see this approach taking form in Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria. Also, i think against UAE. Hakan Fidan never steps the toes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia always consults with them on the matters.

I think both Egypt and Saudi Arabia needs time to being fully trusting on Turkey after all these years but this approach will be good for the region if it works out.

I also think that Iran should have a empty seat in the room. But should only enter this room when Mullah regime dies and a sensible regime in Iran appears.

From my point of view, i trust Hakan Fidan completely. He is gonna make this thing work. But again your points are completely right, it's just me having faith in Hakan Fidan.