AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): The "Mecca Joint Defense Agreement" signed between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan has sparked significant reactions in UAE political and academic circles, particularly from Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a politician and former advisor to Mohammed bin Zayed, the country's president.
UAE criticism has focused more on the nature of the agreement and its timing, as well as the ambiguity surrounding the "common enemy" against which this coalition is formed, and the unclear coordination or lack thereof with other Gulf Cooperation Council countries in its formation.
Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, an academic figure and UAE politician, was one of the most prominent critics of this agreement, writing on the social media platform X that strengthening military and political cooperation among GCC members and consolidating unity among the Persian Gulf countries is far more important than investing in regional military and political arrangements that involve other countries.
Abdulla, expressing doubt about the effectiveness of the new coalition, asked about the nature of the threat the three countries should jointly face: "One of the conditions for the success of any coalition is identifying the common enemy; so who is the enemy of the countries in this coalition?"
He continued, "Congratulations on the establishment of this coalition! But strengthening Gulf military and political cooperation and consolidating relations within the GCC is much more important than investing in regional military and political cooperation that includes countries whose honesty and capability in confronting the Iranian and Israeli threat are not trusted."
This UAE figure also raised the issue of coordination among Gulf countries, asking whether this agreement was made with the knowledge of other GCC members. Abdulkhaleq Abdulla's remark implicitly refers to concerns that Riyadh is taking strategic steps unilaterally and outside the common frameworks of the GCC.
This UAE academic figure also brought up the experience of the 2000 GCC Joint Defense Agreement and considered the fate of that agreement as raising questions about the effectiveness of joint defense arrangements within the GCC.
The Tripartite Defense Agreement
These criticisms came after Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed a joint defense agreement in Mecca, the main clause of which considers any armed attack on one of these three countries as an aggression against the other parties.
According to what was announced, this agreement aims to strengthen defense cooperation, enhance deterrence levels, and expand security coordination among the three countries.
This action indicates Riyadh's desire to expand its network of defense partnerships outside the GCC framework, benefiting from growing political and military relations with Ankara and Islamabad.
In response to these criticisms, Saudi Prince Abdulrahman bin Masaad entered the debate, emphasizing countries' right to conclude agreements they see as aligned with their national interests.
He noted that this agreement is not necessarily in conflict with Gulf cooperation, and recalled that GCC countries have close political, economic, commercial, and investment relations with Turkey and Pakistan.
However, Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, in response, called for a clear description of this agreement to clarify the nature of roles and its field boundaries, writing, "There is no more precise description and summary than the post of Riad Qarmali, Saudi Arabia's Deputy Foreign Minister, about the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement."
Riad Qarmali, Saudi Arabia's Deputy Foreign Minister for Public Diplomacy, emphasized in a post that the "Mecca Joint Defense Agreement" embodies the depth of strategic and historical relations among the three countries and is the result of detailed negotiations that have continued for years.
In a post on his social media account on X, Qarmali explained that this agreement allows the founding countries to develop their joint defense capabilities and strategic deterrence, so that any external armed attack on any of these countries is considered an attack on all of them.
This Saudi diplomat emphasized that this agreement represents an approach to creating a military axis or a sectarian coalition, and is not related to nuclear efforts or an arms race; nor is it considered a threat to any country in the region, and it will not replace existing agreements.
**************
End/ 345E
