Mental Health and Elite Universities: The Mounting…

Recently, the Pew Research Center released results from a study on global perceptions of China and President Xi. The results also compared China and President Xi with the USA and President Donald Trump. The study was conducted in 36 countries and included 42,151 respondents. The results are quite interesting and show that the overwhelming majority of people strongly favor China and President Xi. For example, respondents from 30 of the 36 countries ranked China and President Xi more positively. Moreover, 67% of respondents from 17 middle-income countries viewed China as a reliable partner. This suggests that China fulfills its commitments and never betrays its partners. And 57% believed that China takes care of the interests of other countries. These findings are in line with China’s philosophy of international relations, win-win cooperation and shared prosperity.   The results also indicated that, among the surveyed countries, all Muslim countries have a positive perception of China. Except for Nigeria (equal confidence in Xi and Trump), all Muslim countries showed confidence in President Xi and his leadership.   It is worth noting that in both categories, Pakistanis ranked China and President Xi highest. According to the results, 90% of Pakistanis held a favorable view of China, and 83% expressed confidence in President Xi’s leadership.   Now, the question is, despite all propaganda and malicious campaigns, why is the positive perception of China and President Xi very high?  The answer is that China believes in common development and development together and for everyone. It also resonates with President Xi’s vision that no one should be left behind on the road of development. Therefore, since its rise as a major economic and global power, China is contributing to global development, especially in the Global South. Simultaneously, China has been working to strengthen the voices of the Global South in global affairs and protect them against the hegemonic aspirations of some powerful countries. Moreover, China is striving to bring sustainable peace and security, and to ensure that everyone’s security and security concerns are treated equally. In the pursuit of these objectives, President Xi has launched numerous initiatives, including global, regional, and country-specific ones.   On the global front, President Xi launched five major initiatives: the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, the Global Civilization Initiative, and the Global Governance Initiative. These initiatives have all the ingredients to help the world solve contemporary challenges and chart a path to peaceful, sustainable development and prosperity through cooperative coexistence.   First, China launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by adhering to the Chinese philosophy of shared growth through discussion and collaboration. Latest data show that China has invested almost US$ 1.4 trillion to help countries bridge the development gap. Second, the Global Development Initiative (GDI) was introduced in accordance with the vision of shared prosperity. Under GDI, China has invested more than US$ 23 billion. Third, the Global Security Initiative (GSI), which has been built on four pillars: common, comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable security, was presented. Fourth, the Global Civilization Initiative emphasized harmony in diversity and the rejection of the clash of civilizations. Fifth, the Global Governance Initiative recognizes that all countries, regardless of size, strength, or wealth, are equal participants, decision-makers, and beneficiaries in global governance. The five key principles of GCI, proposed by President Xi, include respecting sovereign equality, adhering to the international rule of law, practicing multilateralism, advocating a people-centered approach, and prioritizing concrete actions.   The China International Import Expo (CIIE) is another initiative with global relevance and a vision of sharing prosperity. It is a unique idea, as there is no precedent in history for organizing an import expo. President Xi himself proposed, planned, deployed, and promoted the idea of the China International Import Expo to fulfill his promise of high-level opening up and creating opportunities for the world. CIIE has emerged as a new avenue to introduce new products, share ideas, and promote innovation. It plays a prominent role in promoting new products by helping companies find buyers for their products and vice versa. China’s technology and innovation penetration and diffusion policies encourage companies and investors to join the event. Therefore, it attracts innovators and leading companies from around the world to attend the event and showcase their products and ideas.   In the list of global initiatives, we can also include the construction of ecological civilization as a seventh initiative, as it is highly relevant to the global audience. The construction of ecological civilization is rooted in the philosophy of harmony between the planet and humans and among humans. It is urgently needed in the context of climate change and environmental degradation.   At the regional level, China has also launched numerous initiatives, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the Boao Forum, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), among others. AIIB was launched to bridge the investment gap in Asia. AIIB aims to build a prosperous future under the slogan “Building Infrastructure for Tomorrow” by adopting principles of sustainability, innovation, and prosperity for the benefit of its people in Asia. Since its launch, President Xi has ensured that the AIIB develops into a modern, innovative, inclusive, goal-oriented, and rule-based institution that can help bridge the investment gap. Thus, he discourages geopolitics, mainstream economic rationales, and sustainability principles.   The Boao Forum (BF) is another regional initiative for Asia. BF is a non-governmental, nonprofit organization hosted and promoted by China. It provides a platform for dialogue among leaders of national governments, industry and business, and academia from countries in Asia and other continents on important issues facing Asia and the world. An analysis of past forums shows that it has focused on multiple areas and helped bring people closer together. It has created opportunities for cooperation and collaboration. Building on the Boao Forum’s past successes and strengths, China is working to explore how to build a community with a shared future for humanity in Asia by deepening interaction and cooperation.   Second, despite propaganda against

In the winter of 1979, a neighbour’s house caught fire. The Soviet Union had marched into Afghanistan, and the flames of war were licking at the walls of Kabul. From across the ocean, a distant power arrived at Pakistan’s door. It did not come with soldiers. It came with money, guns, and a promise: *”Let us fight this fire together. Use your roof. Use your roads. We will stand with you. We will not let the fire reach your house.”* Pakistan opened its door. What else could it do? The Soviet army sat on its western border. The world was divided into two camps, and neutrality was a luxury no frontline state could afford. For ten years, Pakistan became the staging ground for a war that was not its own. It hosted three million refugees. Its cities swelled. Its tribal areas became training grounds for fighters armed and funded by outside money. Weapons arrived by the shipload through Karachi. Pakistani officers coordinated strategy. Every bullet fired at a Soviet convoy in the Hindu Kush passed through Pakistani hands. The distant power paid the bills. It sent the Stinger missiles. It called the resistance fighters “freedom fighters” and Pakistan a “frontline state.” But the war was never truly about Pakistan’s safety. It was about bleeding the Soviet Union in a distant mountainside, using Pakistani soil as the operating theatre and Afghan bodies as the currency. Then, in 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew. The fire in the neighbour’s house went out. And the distant power that had promised eternal friendship turned its attention elsewhere. The billions dried up. The diplomatic interest evaporated. Afghanistan, the battlefield, was left to warlords who turned the weapons on each other. Pakistan was left with three million refugees who would not go home, a Kalashnikov culture that would not disappear, and a border that would never again be quiet. The weapons that had been given to fight the Soviets did not rust. They remained. They moved into streets, into disputes, into corners of the country where the state had never fully reached. The guest who had brought the fire extinguisher had started a blaze that spread to the host’s own house — and then moved to a new neighbourhood. The distant power won its strategic objective at the cost of Afghan and Pakistani soil, then walked away. Its own cities were never bombed. Its own children never became refugees. Its economy never staggered under the weight of someone else’s war. Pakistan, which had signed no formal treaty of alliance but had acted as an ally in every meaningful sense, was left holding the pieces. This is what happens when alliances are forged in the middle of a fire. The stronger partner does not need your victory. He needs your usefulness. He needs you to hold the front, to absorb the blow, to stand in a place where he does not wish to stand. And when the war ends, he will shake your hand and go home — while you remain amid the embers, wondering why the fire you helped extinguish has reignited in your own courtyard. History records a curious pattern. The alliances that have endured — the ones that outlasted their founders and shaped the world for generations — were almost never built while the house was burning. NATO was forged in 1949, not because the bombs were falling on Paris, but because the memory of war was still fresh and the desire to prevent it was shared. The parties had time to read the text, to negotiate the terms, to build institutions that could survive a change of government on either side. An alliance born in the middle of a fire is a different creature entirely. It is an emergency measure. And emergency measures have a way of becoming permanent arrangements that no one planned and no one fully controls. When you sign while the heat is at your back and the smoke is in your eyes, you do not have time to ask who owns the hose, who pays for the water, and who walks away when the flames are out. The Afghan episode is not ancient history. It is in our own lifetime. It is written in the smoke that still rises from our western border. And it is written in the simple fact that the weapons once aimed at a northern invader eventually turned inward, because no one had written a clause for what happens after the guest leaves. Pakistan has every right to defend itself. Pakistan has every right to seek friends in a dangerous world. But history offers a quiet observation for those who are listening: **the strongest alliances are built in peacetime, not borrowed in panic.** The fire is real. The neighbour’s house is burning. Yet the hand that offers protection in the middle of a war is holding a different ledger than the hand that offers partnership in the middle of calm. That is not a warning against friendship. It is simply what the record shows.

The picture of today’s Chinese factories is very different from the one we used to see in the past few decades. In present-day Chinese factories, alongside workers, there are robots, automated production lines, engineers and software systems. This image makes one realize that China’s role is not limited to being the world’s factory anymore. It is undergoing significant transformation that tells a story of a forward-looking vision. Now, China is moving from simply manufacturing products designed elsewhere to developing the technologies, brands and ideas behind tomorrow’s global economy.  There was a time when the words “Made in China” were associated with China’s role as the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. At that time, “Made in China” also represented a shift of China from merely a developing economy to a country widely known for mass production, affordable products and competitive prices. Whether it be clothes, toys, household goods or electronics, Chinese factories became an essential part of global supply chains. But China didn’t stop there. China considered going through a new transition after realizing that the world’s economic patterns were shifting and that new innovations and technologies were taking center stage. It was a change from merely producing goods for other people to developing its own technologies, brands, and business strategies. It was not a small change. It made sure that future should not only be defined by “Made in China”, but increasingly by “Innovated in China”.  China’s journey of becoming the world trading powerhouse began in 2001 when it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). Within just eight years, China became the world’s largest exporter of goods. By 2013, it had taken the top position in total trade. Today, China’s total imports and exports are worth more than $6 trillion. Its manufacturing strength has given companies around the world access to competitive products and has helped make global trade faster and more affordable. But the more interesting story today is what China is producing through its own innovation. Electric vehicles (EV) industry is the best example that reflects this shift towards “Innovated in China”. In 1951, BYD was established as a domestic manufacturer. Over the years, BYD developed into a Chinese multinational company and the leader of the global EV industry. It is not just a manufacturer anymore but a company that makes its own ideas, develops its own technology and makes its own electric vehicles and batteries. It has created its footprint in global markets like South Asia, South East Asia, Europe, Latin America and other regions. Chinese electric cars are now being recognized more for their battery tech, design, software and performance, and not just their price. China has also built a huge domestic market for electric vehicles, giving its companies an environment in which they can improve rapidly. A similar change can be seen in renewable energy. China produces large number of solar panels, batteries, and other green technologies. All these steps make China a major driving force in clean energy industry. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China controls over 80% to 90% of every single key stage of the global solar supply chain, that makes it an undisputed global leader in solar photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing. This matters far beyond China. Lower-cost solar equipment has helped countries around the world expand renewable energy and pursue their climate goals. China’s strength in batteries is particularly important. Batteries are the beating heart of electric vehicles, energy storage and, increasingly, modern electricity systems. The Chinese companies have poured money into research on batteries and into increasing production. Companies such as CATL have become key suppliers to international automobile manufacturers. In this sense, Chinese innovation is no longer simply about producing a finished product; it is increasingly about supplying the technology that makes the next generation of global industries possible. Another important example is high-speed rail. China has developed the world’s largest high-speed railway network, connecting major cities across the country. Now, China’s experience and expertise can be used internationally. Chinese companies have participated in railway projects and infrastructure development in different parts of the world. Under the Belt and Road Initiative, China has also increased economic connections through investment and infrastructure cooperation. Digital technology is another area where China has moved from follower to innovator. Chinese companies have developed globally competitive platforms in e-commerce, digital payments, logistics and telecommunications. The widespread use of mobile payments in Chinese cities is a real-life example. Consumers can pay for food, transport and everyday purchases using their phones, while businesses can reach customers through sophisticated digital platforms. This innovation is supported by a huge domestic market. With more than 1.4 billion people, China provides its companies with an enormous testing ground. A new product or service can reach millions of users quickly. Companies that succeed at home can then adapt their products for international markets. This combination of scale, manufacturing capacity, engineering talent and growing research investment gives China a unique position in global trade. China’s investment in research and development also reflects this shift. Data from the World Bank show that China’s research and development spending has risen substantially over the past two decades. China is also among the world’s leading countries in patent applications. The sheer number of patents is not a measure of quality of innovation, but of the scale of China’s technological activity. This could be a very significant change for international trade. Globalization, in future, will not only be dependent on large factories producing inexpensive goods. It will increasingly be about technology, clean energy, AI, advance manufacturing, digital services and sophisticated supply chains. China is already very well positioned in many of these areas.  This does not mean China will replace every other manufacturing or technology center. International trade works best when countries specialize, compete and cooperate at the same time. China will continue to import raw materials, energy, technology and components while exporting finished products, machinery and increasingly sophisticated technologies. Its success will also create opportunities for businesses in developing countries that become part of Chinese-linked supply

By Ali Hiader A certain segment in Pakistan has been gaining momentum in arguing that had dictator General Pervez Musharraf—like Imran Khan—said “Absolutely Not” to Washington, Pakistan might have been spared the scourge of terrorism and the subsequent economic hardships. However, such an argument attempts to view the decision made in 2001 through the lens of circumstances that emerged years later. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, shook the United States and sent shockwaves through the global order; approximately 3,000 people lost their lives, and institutions regarded globally as symbols of American economic and military might were targeted. These attacks challenged the security of the world’s sole superpower and generated intense public pressure on the President George W. Bush’s administration to take retaliatory action. For the United States, inaction had become politically almost impossible. Responsibility for these attacks was attributed to Al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden—a Saudi national who was living in Afghanistan under Taliban protection. Initially, Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks, but his later statements increasingly portrayed as a retaliatory response to American policies. Regardless of how these statements were interpreted politically, by the end of 2001, it was clear to Washington that Al-Qaeda was the primary enemy and that Afghanistan was the hub of its operations. This context holds particular significance for Pakistan because the Taliban government was harboring Osama bin Laden. Pakistan was not merely a distant spectator to this crisis; it shared a long border with Afghanistan and had spent two decades during the Cold War establishing an extensive political and intelligence network there. Consequently, the United States had no better option than Pakistan. Therefore, the fundamental question is: Did Pakistan truly have the option to simply say “absolutely not,” instead of joining the American war? Pakistan was already grappling with severe economic and diplomatic vulnerabilities during the post-9/11 crisis, as the United States and other Western nations had imposed harsh economic sanctions following the 1998 nuclear tests. These sanctions slowed the pace of development, hampered foreign investment, and strained relations with global financial institutions, leaving the country already burdened by heavy debt. The situation became further complicated when General Pervez Musharraf seized power in October 1999, overthrowing an elected government. The military coup added fuel to the fire, further damaging Pakistan’s global reputation and leaving the country diplomatically weakened at a time when it needed international support the most. Following the September 11 attacks, Washington made its expectations absolutely clear. According to Musharraf’s own account, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage delivered a stern message to Pakistan: it had to stand either with the United States or against it. Another remark widely attributed to the US position was that if Pakistan refused to cooperate, it could be sent “back to the Stone Age.” Although the exact wording of that phrase was never officially substantiated, the intensity of US pressure was undeniable. Did the United States have the capability to inflict devastating damage on Pakistan, despite Pakistan being a nuclear power? The answer to this is “yes.” Pakistan’s nuclear capability was primarily developed to deter India. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal provided Islamabad with a strategic deterrent against its key regional rival, but this did not mean Pakistan was immune to American economic, diplomatic, or technological pressure. Pakistan lacked the long-range military capabilities to directly strike the U.S. mainland—located 7,000 miles away—whereas the United States held an overwhelming advantage in air power, naval strength, intelligence, technology, financial resources, and global diplomatic influence. Therefore, nuclear weapons were not synonymous with strategic parity with the United States. Pakistan could deter certain types of aggression from India, but realistically, it lacked the capability to inflict the same level of damage upon the United States. Another major reason for Pakistan’s importance to the United States was the intelligence network present in Afghanistan. During the Cold War, Pakistan was one of the United States’ key regional partners in supporting the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation. Pakistani intelligence agencies established extensive networks among Afghan groups, while the United States and Saudi Arabia provided arms and financial support for the resistance. Pakistan served as a crucial conduit for channeling this aid to the Afghan resistance. This historical relationship gave the United States a unique strategic advantage after 9/11. Pakistan possessed a combination of geography, intelligence networks, logistical routes, and institutional experience—assets that would have been extremely difficult to replace. Its cooperation could significantly facilitate U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Consequently, Islamabad chose the path it deemed relatively less damaging. Pakistan provided assistance through logistical support, access to airspace and facilities, intelligence cooperation, and other means, but did not directly join the war; in return for this strategic support, US sanctions were eased, economic aid increased, and Pakistan regained special diplomatic significance in Washington. This does not mean that the decision was without negative consequences. Pakistan itself became a major target of terrorism, resulting in the deaths of nearly 70,000 civilian and military personnels and economic losses of approximately $150 billion; Pakistan paid a very heavy price for this war. Furthermore, the repercussions of the strategic policies adopted during the 1980s and 1990s later manifested as problems for Pakistan—issues that perhaps could not have been fully foreseen in 2001. However, there is an important distinction here: criticizing the consequences of a decision and claiming that a different realistic course of action existed at the time are two separate things. A major irony of the Afghan war is that U.S. officials and analysts have repeatedly cited Pakistan as one of the primary reason for the failure to achieve American objectives in Afghanistan. When the question arises as to why the world’s most powerful military failed to achieve its objectives in Afghanistan, the answer is sometimes given in a single word: Pakistan. This should not necessarily be viewed as a badge of honor; rather, it reflects a complex relationship in which Washington needed Pakistan yet lacked trust in it, while simultaneously accusing certain Pakistani elements of supporting forces that were undermining

Pakistan observed World Hepatitis Day on 28 July in Islamabad with a renewed national commitment to eliminating Hepatitis C and strengthening public health interventions through coordinated action, innovation, and community engagement. Under the Prime Minister’s National Programme for the Elimination of Hepatitis C Infection, the Government of Pakistan has launched free screening, free diagnostic testing, and free treatment for Hepatitis C patients across the country. The initiative represents a major public health intervention aimed at reducing the country’s exceptionally high burden of the disease and ensuring that financial constraints do not prevent patients from receiving timely diagnosis and life-saving treatment. The ceremony was attended by the Federal Minister for Health, Syed Mustafa Kamal; the Federal Minister for Planning, Development and Special Initiatives, Professor Ahsan Iqbal; the WHO Country Representative, Dr. Luo Dapeng; the Federal Secretary for Health, Muhammad Aslam Ghori; Professor Dr. Saeed Akhtar, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Pakistan Kidney and Liver Institute and Research Centre (PKLI&RC); the Chief Executive Officer of Dr. Akbar Niazi Teaching Hospital, Islamabad, Yasir Khan Niazi; Dr. Huma Qureshi; and Dr. Hassan Mahmood, Country Head of Integral Global. International delegates, representatives of national and international organizations, and leading health experts were also present. The event was organized by the Project Management Unit of the Prime Minister’s National Programme for the Elimination of Hepatitis C Infection under the leadership and supervision of Project Director Dr. Zia Dawar, in collaboration with Dr. Akbar Niazi Teaching Hospital, Islamabad, and Integral Global. The gathering provided an important platform to assess progress, discuss future strategies, and reaffirm Pakistan’s determination to achieve Hepatitis C elimination through evidence-based policies, strong partnerships, and effective implementation mechanisms. Hepatitis C remains a major public health concern worldwide, but the scale of the challenge is particularly serious in Pakistan. A large number of infected individuals remain unaware of their condition because the disease may progress silently for years without producing obvious symptoms. Limited access to screening, delayed diagnosis, unsafe medical practices, inadequate awareness, and the high cost of treatment have historically prevented many patients from seeking timely care. The introduction of free screening, testing, and treatment under the Prime Minister’s National Programme therefore marks a significant shift in Pakistan’s response. It recognizes that Hepatitis C cannot be eliminated merely by treating patients who reach hospitals at an advanced stage. Instead, a comprehensive national strategy is required to identify undiagnosed cases, provide confirmatory testing, ensure immediate access to treatment, prevent new infections, and maintain effective monitoring and surveillance systems. Addressing the gathering, Federal Minister for Health Syed Mustafa Kamal stated that Pakistan carries one of the highest burdens of Hepatitis C patients in the world. He warned that the disease continues to threaten millions of lives and places immense pressure on families, communities, and the national healthcare system. He emphasized that the government could not remain indifferent to a health crisis of such magnitude and had therefore launched a nationwide programme providing free screening, free testing, and free treatment to eligible patients. Federal Minister for Planning, Development and Special Initiatives Professor Ahsan Iqbal highlighted the need to integrate public health priorities into Pakistan’s broader national development agenda. He emphasized that a healthy population is the foundation of economic growth, social stability, productivity, and sustainable development. Illness not only affects individuals and families but also reduces workforce participation, increases household expenditure, and places additional pressure on national resources. Professor Ahsan Iqbal noted that investment in disease prevention and healthcare accessibility should not be viewed merely as an expenditure. Rather, it is a long-term investment in Pakistan’s human capital and future prosperity. He stressed that the elimination of communicable diseases such as Hepatitis C requires continuity of policy, effective planning, measurable targets, institutional coordination, and transparent implementation. The presence of international health partners at the event reflected the global importance of Pakistan’s hepatitis elimination agenda. WHO Country Representative Dr. Luo Dapeng appreciated Pakistan’s efforts to advance Hepatitis C elimination and reiterated the importance of sustained political commitment, strong surveillance, effective prevention, reliable data, public awareness, and universal access to treatment. He emphasized that international cooperation, technical expertise, and knowledge-sharing remain essential for strengthening national healthcare responses. Pakistan’s success in controlling Hepatitis C would not only protect millions of its citizens but would also contribute significantly to regional and global disease-elimination targets. Addressing the gathering online, Professor Dr. Saeed Akhtar emphasized that eliminating Hepatitis C requires more than treating individuals after they become seriously ill. He stressed the importance of prevention, widespread screening, early diagnosis, safe medical practices, public awareness, and timely access to effective treatment. Professor Dr. Saeed Akhtar observed that Pakistan possesses the medical knowledge and therapeutic tools necessary to control the disease. However, success will depend on sustained political commitment, effective implementation, and close cooperation among the federal and provincial governments, healthcare institutions, development partners, and local communities. Reliable data will enable policymakers to understand where infections are concentrated, which populations remain underserved, and whether screening and treatment programmes are producing the desired results. Without accurate monitoring, even well-funded programmes may struggle to measure their impact or address gaps in implementation. The participation of international delegates and eminent health professionals demonstrated the growing recognition of Pakistan’s hepatitis elimination efforts on the global health platform. Their engagement provided an opportunity to exchange knowledge, examine successful international models, and identify practical solutions for overcoming the challenges that continue to hinder progress. World Hepatitis Day serves as a reminder that Hepatitis C is preventable, diagnosable, and treatable. Its elimination is achievable when governments, healthcare professionals, communities, development partners, and international organizations work together with a shared vision and sustained commitment. Pakistan’s journey towards eliminating Hepatitis C is not merely a medical campaign. It is a national commitment to protecting lives, reducing health inequalities, preventing avoidable suffering, and ensuring that no individual is denied treatment because of poverty or limited access to healthcare. The Islamabad event conveyed a clear and powerful message; Hepatitis C elimination is possible through leadership, collaboration, public awareness, and sustained action. The

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye’s landmark defence agreement draws international attention; Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir play pivotal roles in historic strategic breakthrough The landmark Makkah Joint Defence Agreement between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye has triggered intense international interest, with analysts viewing the accord as a potentially significant development in the evolving security architecture of the Middle East and wider Muslim world. Signed in Makkah by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the agreement establishes a collective-defence principle under which an armed attack against any one of the three countries will be regarded as an attack against all three. The pact brings together three strategically important states with highly complementary capabilities: Saudi Arabia’s economic and energy weight, Türkiye’s powerful conventional military and expanding defence industry, and Pakistan’s extensive military experience and strategic deterrent. The combination has prompted international analysts to examine whether the Makkah agreement could become the foundation of a more autonomous, regionally driven security framework. Ishaq Dar: agreement is defensive, not directed against any country Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Senator Ishaq Dar has sought to clarify the scope and purpose of the agreement amid growing international interest. Dar described the Makkah Accord as “purely defensive in nature” and “not targeted against any country”, stressing that its purpose is to strengthen collective security and promote peace and stability. He said the agreement does not replace or undermine existing bilateral or multilateral arrangements maintained by the three countries with each other, other states or international organisations. Under the accord, Dar explained, an external armed attack against any one of the three countries would be considered an attack against all, consistent with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Dar also said the framework remains open to other countries that share its principles and are prepared to resolve differences through mutual respect, cooperation and peaceful means. His clarification is strategically important because it positions the Makkah framework as a mechanism of deterrence rather than confrontation, without identifying Iran, Israel or any other state as a permanent adversary. Hakan Fidan compares mutual-defence provision with NATO Article 5 The most significant international description of the agreement’s collective-defence provision has come from Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan. Fidan said the provision is technically comparable to NATO’s Article 5, under which an attack against one member is treated as an attack against all. The comparison does not mean that the Makkah framework has NATO’s integrated command structure or institutional architecture. The practical response to any attack would be determined according to the circumstances. Fidan said a ministerial committee would be established and a general secretariat based in Saudi Arabia would oversee the framework, with further operational details to be developed. He also indicated that Türkiye wants the framework to expand, identifying Egypt as a potential future member. The prospect of expansion is potentially significant because it could transform a trilateral arrangement into a wider regional security mechanism. OIC welcomes agreement as an ‘important strategic step’ The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has welcomed the agreement, with Secretary General Hissein Brahim Taha expressing strong support and describing the pact as an “important strategic step” reflecting the commitment of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye to strengthening cooperation. The OIC response gives the agreement significance beyond the three signatories and places it within the wider context of cooperation among Muslim-majority countries. The development comes at a time when several regional states are reassessing existing security arrangements and seeking greater strategic autonomy. Saudi Arabia: strengthening security without abandoning existing partnerships Riyadh has emphasised that the new defence framework does not replace its existing security arrangements. Saudi Deputy Minister for Public Diplomacy Rayed Krimly said the agreement does not supersede or replace existing bilateral or multilateral agreements involving the three countries. The position reflects Saudi Arabia’s broader foreign-policy strategy of strategic diversification. The Kingdom continues to maintain a major relationship with the United States while simultaneously deepening strategic, economic and defence ties with Türkiye, Pakistan, China and other powers. The Makkah pact therefore appears less a replacement for existing alliances than an additional layer of regional deterrence. Chatham House: Türkiye pursuing strategic ‘hedging’ The Makkah agreement has also given renewed significance to earlier analysis by Chatham House. Tim Chattell of the International Security Programme at Chatham House examined the prospect of a Turkish strategic arrangement with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan before the trilateral agreement was signed. He argued that such cooperation formed part of Ankara’s wider strategy of “hedging” — developing alternative strategic partnerships while retaining its NATO commitments. Chattell also identified potential synergy between the three countries, particularly because Türkiye and Pakistan possess complementary defence capabilities while Saudi Arabia has significant financial resources that could support defence cooperation and industrial development. What had previously been examined as an emerging strategic alignment has now become a formal defence commitment. Atlantic Council: a ‘double deterrence tool’ The Atlantic Council has also examined the evolving Saudi-Pakistan security relationship. Analyst Eleonora Ardemagni described the Saudi-Pakistan defence pact as a “double deterrence tool”, arguing that the relationship reflected both immediate security concerns and Saudi Arabia’s longer-term drive towards greater defence autonomy. Her analysis highlighted military training, capacity building, defence-industry cooperation, technology transfer and potential co-production as important elements of the emerging partnership. The inclusion of Türkiye adds another major military and defence-industrial dimension to that relationship. A strategic triangle of complementary power The significance of the Makkah pact lies partly in the capabilities each country brings to the partnership. Saudi Arabia contributes enormous economic and energy influence, strategic geography and financial resources. Türkiye contributes a major conventional military, NATO experience and an increasingly sophisticated indigenous defence industry. Pakistan contributes one of the region’s largest and most experienced armed forces, longstanding military cooperation with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, and a nuclear deterrent. The three-way combination therefore creates a strategic partnership in which each member contributes capabilities that complement