Defence pacts in history: Lessons from the world for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
As Riyadh turns to Islamabad, the geopolitics of collective security could enter a new phase
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's recent state visit to Saudi Arabia marked a significant upgrade in the long-standing relationship between the two countries.
At Al Yamamah Palace in Riyadh on 17 September 2025, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA), a pact declaring that any attack on one country would be treated as an attack on both.
Early cooperation between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia included deploying Pakistani troops to safeguard Saudi Arabia during regional wars beginning in the 1960s over concerns about Egypt's war in Yemen, under the Treaty of Friendship (1951).
Pakistani officials have suggested that the timing and nature of the recent agreement are significant. It could lead to the sharing of nuclear deterrence capabilities, which some analysts believe may create a new regional power dynamic that extends beyond the Middle East.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
"This deal is about hedging," Abdullah Hayek, a research assistant with The Washington Institute's Military and Security Studies Program told The Hill. "Saudi Arabia is no longer confident the United States will always provide the shield it once did. With Pakistan, it gains both manpower and, potentially, access to nuclear deterrence."
Call for an Arab NATO
Days after the Saudi–Pakistani pact, Arab leaders convened an emergency summit in Doha. There, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi revived an old idea: a collective defence organisation modelled on NATO.
He argued that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), long the region's main security forum, had proved ineffective. Instead, Cairo proposed an 'Arab Unified Army', treating an attack on one member as an attack on all.
Reports in Al-Akhbar and Al-Quds Al-Arabi suggested Egypt offered 20,000 troops for such a force, with command under an Egyptian four-star general and deputy leadership from a Gulf state. North African states, including Morocco and Algeria, were also floated for inclusion. The initiative echoed Sisi's earlier proposals in 2014 and Saudi-led discussions in 2017, both of which had faltered over questions of command and commitment.
While the Doha summit condemned Israel's strike and voiced solidarity with Gaza, it stopped short of endorsing the 'Arab NATO' idea. Qatar and the UAE reportedly rejected it, wary of being locked into confrontations that could escalate regional polarisation.
Still, the call underscored a wider debate: whether bilateral and regional pacts can truly deliver collective security in an era of fragmented alliances.
Every defence pact is both a promise and a gamble. The question is whether, when the test comes, allies will actually fight for each other. NATO has proved it works. The Arab world is still searching for its own version.
Bilateral defence pacts
History is replete with such agreements. Some endure and adapt, while others collapse under shifting geopolitics.
The India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1950), still in force despite criticism in Kathmandu that it favours India, remains a cornerstone of bilateral ties. Similarly, the US-Philippines Mutual Defence Treaty (1951) continues to underpin Manila's security, particularly in the South China Sea, despite periodic tensions over sovereignty and US military presence.
In South Asia, Pakistan once tied itself to Washington through the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement (1954), receiving nearly $900 million in military aid. Yet the pact frayed as Pakistan prioritised its rivalry with India while the US focused on the Soviet Union. The treaty is now defunct, replaced by more transactional arrangements.
The Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation (1971) proved more consequential. Signed in the shadow of the Bangladesh Liberation War, it secured Moscow's support for New Delhi and marked India's departure from strict non-alignment. Though dissolved with the Soviet Union in 1991, its legacy endures in India-Russia ties today.
Other accords have evolved over time.
The Taiwan Relations Act (1979) obliges Washington to supply Taipei with defensive arms, a commitment reinforced in recent years as Chinese military pressure intensifies. Meanwhile, the US-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement (2012), meant to secure post-NATO Afghanistan, effectively collapsed with the Taliban's return in 2021.
"The record shows that bilateral pacts can be highly effective in the short term," wrote Joshua T White, Fellow of Foreign Policy at Center for Asia Policy Studies in an analysis published in Brookings. "But their survival depends on whether the signatories' threat perceptions align. Once those diverge, the pact weakens or dies."
Multilateral blocs
Beyond bilateral deals, multilateral organisations have had a more mixed record. NATO, established in 1949 with Article 5 enshrining collective defence, remains the most robust. It has expanded to 32 members, adapting to new challenges such as cyber threats and terrorism. Its united response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine underscores its resilience.
By contrast, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), created in 2002 under Moscow's lead, has struggled. With members including Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, it suffers from internal divisions and, more recently, Armenia's distancing. Critics call it a paper tiger compared with NATO's integrated command.
Regional examples exist too. The US-Japan Security Treaty (1960) and US-South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty (1953) both remain pillars of Indo-Pacific security.
In the Himalayas, the India-Bhutan Treaty of Friendship (1949, revised 2007) ensures Indian support for Bhutan's security while respecting its sovereignty. Supplementary defence agreements in 2017 and annual dialogues, the fifth held in 2023, continue to strengthen ties.
Collective security in the Middle East
Against this backdrop, Sisi's 'Islamic NATO' idea reflects a recurring frustration: Arab states have failed to build a lasting military bloc. The GCC, despite its economic and political weight, lacks the cohesion to mount joint military action. Saudi-led coalitions, whether in Yemen or in earlier defence discussions, have often faltered on rivalries and differing national agendas.
That may explain why Riyadh turned instead to Islamabad. Pakistan brings not just military manpower but also a track record of deploying forces to Saudi Arabia in times of crisis. The new SMDA, therefore, signals both continuity and change, continuity in the long history of defence partnerships, and change in the region's search for security guarantees beyond Washington.
"Every defence pact is both a promise and a gamble," opined security analyst Rana al-Khalidi in an interview with Middle East Eye. "The question is whether, when the test comes, allies will actually fight for each other. NATO has proved it works. The Arab world is still searching for its own version."
