Why the Mecca defence pact hasn’t triggered action against the Houthis - Middle East Eye

Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have faced criticism almost immediately after signing the Mecca joint defence agreement last month, with questions raised about the newly formed alliance’s lack of response to Houthi attacks launched from Yemen against Saudi Arabia.

From the day after the signing ceremony, experts questioned whether Ankara would come to Riyadh’s aid as the Houthis targeted energy infrastructure and civilian areas in the kingdom.

The group’s takeover of stretches of Yemen’s coast near the Bab al-Mandeb Strait over the weekend, followed by attacks on the East-West Pipeline, which carries nearly 4 percent of the global oil supply, intensified the controversy.

However, judging the pact solely by the absence of an immediate joint military response overlooks several distinct questions: whether its defence obligations have entered into force, whether its members have built the mechanisms to implement them, and whether they are demonstrating sufficient political solidarity.

A senior Turkish official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Middle East Eye that criticism portraying the alliance as already failing was disingenuous and intended to belittle it.

His central argument was that the treaty’s defence commitments were not yet legally operative, while the institutions and military arrangements needed to implement them would take time to develop.

The agreement still needs to pass through the signatories’ domestic approval processes before its defence obligations become binding, the official said.

Turkey will submit the agreement to parliament soon, possibly in October, making its text public and beginning the parliamentary approval process, he added.

Under Turkey’s constitution, the president cannot ratify security agreements without parliamentary approval.

Pakistan’s government must also secure parliamentary approval for the treaty, according to the official. The Saudi government, however, could ratify the agreement by royal decree.

The official’s account therefore offers an important objection to claims that Turkey has already failed to honour a legally binding mutual-defence obligation. It does not, on its own, settle every question about the agreement’s legal status across all three countries.

“People don’t want to understand but what we founded is not only a security alliance but actually an international organisation,” the official said.

“And the founding treaty, once revealed, would show to the world how carefully it was crafted.”

Even after the agreement enters into force, the official argued, the three countries will need mechanisms to assess threats, consult one another and coordinate assistance.

“We need to draw defence and readiness plans, work on interoperability issues and create a long-term plan to establish deterrence for these three countries,” the official added.

The challenge is not that these militaries have never cooperated. Turkey has previously participated in or organised joint drills with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia separately, but the three countries have never conducted military exercises together in a trilateral setting.

The remaining work, according to the official, includes addressing interoperability: ensuring that the countries’ forces, equipment and procedures can function together effectively.

The countries have already begun building the alliance’s institutions. At their Istanbul meeting on 31 August, they agreed to establish a secretariat in Saudi Arabia, initially headed by a Pakistani secretary-general serving a three-year term.

They also committed to joint activities intended to strengthen their military capabilities and cooperation.

“The consultative Istanbul meeting by the allies to establish a secretariat, appoint a secretary-general and regularly meet to hold defence negotiations is a sign that we are on a long way to institutionalise it,” the official said. “This could take a few years.”

Announcing a secretariat, however, does not itself mean that the members have agreed on or rehearsed a response to a missile or drone attack.

The Mecca agreement’s public commitment to treat an attack on one member as an attack on all invites comparison with Nato’s Article 5. The Turkish official said the agreement’s drafters drew inspiration from the Nato treaty throughout the text.

Nato’s Article 5 is often seen as the gold standard in security guarantees. It has been invoked only once, following al-Qaeda’s attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001.

Under Article 5, members have an obligation to assist an ally under attack, but each determines the action it considers necessary. Assistance does not necessarily involve the use of armed force, let alone an automatic retaliatory strike.

The Turkish official described the Mecca pact as similarly requiring consultation over how to respond.

“As in the Nato case, Mecca allies will receive a petition from any member states, host a conference on this and decide how to respond,” the official said. “An attack simply doesn’t trigger a military counter-attack.”

Turkey and Pakistan demonstrated political solidarity by issuing statements condemning the attack on Saudi Arabia over the weekend. Pakistan also said that, despite its binding bilateral treaty with Riyadh, it had received no Saudi request to intervene.

When Turkey shot down a Russian warplane on 24 November 2015, saying it had violated Turkish airspace, Ankara requested an extraordinary Nato meeting. The alliance’s support for Turkey included strengthened air defences and additional air and maritime capabilities. 

“Russian drones have repeatedly violated the Nato airspace and landed in several allied countries, what was Nato’s response?” the official asked.

Germany, for example, blamed Russia for the attempted drone attack at Leipzig/Halle Airport on 4 August. A drone carrying explosives was discovered near a Ukrainian cargo aircraft at the airport in eastern Germany. 

The device failed to explode, apparently because its detonator was faulty. Parts of another suspected explosives-carrying drone were found near the airport on 14 August. Initial reports suggested that a separate drone had collided with a cargo aircraft. 

The whole episode didn't trigger any response from Nato. 

For the Turkish official, the agreement’s purpose is to establish deterrence over the longer term rather than provide an immediate solution to every existing confrontation.

“We all know that a possible India-Pakistan fighting, or Houthis attacking Saudi Arabia are the soft tummies of this agreement,” the Turkish official said. “But we signed this deal to ensure that this alliance in the long run would establish enough deterrence to de-escalate things.”