Dr. Miklos K. Radvanyi
Signed by Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the most important fact about the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement may ultimately prove to be not who signed it now, but which countries will sign it in the future. Deceptively, this Agreement embraces a simple principle: an armed attack against one of the three signatories will be regarded as an attack against the other two as well. This language immediately invites comparison with NATO’s famous collective-defense principle.
Clearly, this comparison should not be exaggerated. NATO is an over seventy years old organization that possesses an integrated military structure, long operational experience, elaborate command arrangements, and established procedures for political consultation. The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement presently possesses nothing comparable. Its actual military obligations remain remarkably undefined.
Yet, institutions should be judged not merely by what they are at birth, but by what they could become. And this Agreement has considerable potential. Turkey contributes one of the largest and most experienced military in the Muslim world, a rapidly expanding defense industry, and membership in NATO. Pakistan contributes a large professional military and, most importantly, nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia contributes enormous financial resources, substantial modern weaponry, custody of Islam’s two holiest cities, and political influence extending beyond the Muslim Ummah. Put it more succinctly, the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement brought together Turkish military power, Pakistani nuclear power, and Saudi financial as well as religious power. This combination deserves the world’s attention.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan have already made clear that they do not necessarily envision the Agreement remaining a triumvirate. More precisely, they both have spoken explicitly about broadening the triumvirate with Egypt as a natural member state. Such an enlargement will transform the present strategic calculation. A Turkish-Pakistani-Saudi Agreement is an important regional alignment. A Turkish-Pakistani-Saudi-Egyptian Agreement would begin to resemble the skeleton of a new multinational security system. Adding Qatar and Kuwait, both plausible candidates because of their existing relationships with members of the pact, and the organization becomes even more consequential. Moreover, if eventually joined by additional Gulf, Arab, Central Asian or Muslim-majority states, the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement could gradually develop into something the Islamic Ummah has repeatedly discussed, but never successfully created: a genuinely significant collective-security organization. The popular description of such an arrangement as an “Islamic NATO” is presently premature. Yet, it is no longer entirely fanciful. The crucial distinction is between an alliance of three states that happen to be Muslim and an alliance consciously organized around the geopolitical interests of Muslim states. If the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement evolves toward the second model, the international consequences would be profound.
The most sensitive member state is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is the only Muslim-majority country possessing nuclear weapons. An adversary contemplating a major attack against Turkey or Saudi Arabia would henceforth have to ask not merely what Ankara and Riyadh might do, but what Islamabad might eventually consider necessary under an agreement declaring an attack upon these two to be an attack upon Pakistan. This ambiguity itself presents strategic value. Yet, it also creates danger. Should the alliance expand, governments from Tehran to Jerusalem – and eventually New Delhi – would have to calculate whether Pakistan’s nuclear capability represents merely a national deterrent for the embryonic strategic umbrella of a broader coalition. Even more threateningly, if the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement evolves into a purely Sunni geopolitical coalition, it could institutionalize rather than reduce the Sunni-Shi’a division that has destabilized the Middle East for generations. Undoubtedly, a collective-defense arrangement may stabilize the region. A sectarian military bloc could bitterly divide it permanently.
Israel must also examine the development carefully. The question is not whether the member states of the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement intend to attack Israel. The more important question is whether an expanding Mecca coalition eventually develops common policies concerning the existence of Israel. Individual Muslim governments negotiating bilateral agreements with Israel constitute diplomacy. Those governments coordinating military, economic and diplomatic policies through a permanent security organization constitute a geopolitical threat. In this context, the Abraham Accord would acquire another dimension. What appeared to be a gradual movement toward integrating Israel into a new regional order could increasingly coexist – and compete – with the establishment of a separate Muslim-centered security architecture.
Above all, for the White House, the development contains an extraordinary paradox. All three founding members have important historical security relationships with the United States of America. Turkey is a NATO member. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has depended heavily upon American weapons and security cooperation. Pakistan has alternated between close partnership and difficult estrangement with Washington, D.C. for decades. As of yet, the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement does not mean that America’s regional alliances are disappearing. Yet, it reflects something potentially more important: the increasing desire of major regional powers to insure themselves against uncertainty in American policy.
Turkey’s particularly complicated position would be even more unmanageable if expansion would become transregional. Moreover, expansion would produce another unavoidable problem: Who leads?! In the absence of a clear hegemon, the organization becomes more egalitarian. Yet, a leaderless organization could easily become dysfunctional. History contains many alliances established to preserve peace that ultimately divided the world into hostile camps. Therefore, whether the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement produces stability or another great geopolitical division will depend upon what principle ultimately will define the organization. If its principle is collective Muslim defense against aggression, the Agreement could become a stabilizing force. If its principle becomes collective Muslim Power against outsiders, it could deepen the very divisions its founders claim they want to overcome. That choice has not yet been made. A third option could be a bloody struggle for a new Middle East order. In the emerging global nuclear shadow a new Middle Eastern Cold War would necessarily activate the People’s Republic of China and India too. In this case, not just the Middle East but the entire world will surely become a world-shattering slaughterhouse.