Ebola Outbreak-The deadly Epidemic

Pakistan laid the foundation for a NATO-style alliance among Muslim nations as Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement on August 7, 2026. The agreement represents a powerful recognition of Pakistan’s growing strategic importance.   The other two signatories included Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammad bin Salman, and Türkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who, along with Sharif, gathered at Al-Safa Palace in Mecca. In a joint statement, these countries announced that the agreement is “guided by the longstanding historical ties among the three states, based on the enduring bonds of brotherhood and Islamic solidarity that unite them, and building upon their shared strategic interests and longstanding defence cooperation.” The agreement asserts a commitment to treat an armed attack against any one of the three countries as an attack against all three.   The historic trilateral defence agreement was held at the Mecca Al-Mukarramah Summit for Joint Defence. It was also attended by Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) and Chief of the Army Staff Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif, and Deputy PM and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. The foreign and defence ministers of Turkiye and Saudi Arabia were also in attendance. While the Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan described the agreement’s terms as technically comparable to NATO’s Article 5, it is pertinent to note that the pact is not equivalent to NATO. Its precise operational mechanisms and institutional framework are yet to be developed. Both Pakistan and Turkish officials have, however, reinforced that the agreement is not directed against any particular country. It is also not designed to replace any existing alliance or strategic relationship, and this particularly holds for Türkiye, which is already a member of NATO. That said, the Mecca agreement is merely a defensive arrangement. It is crucial to make this distinction because these countries are not preparing for war. Instead, they are attempting to make collective security more credible. Simply put, the goal is to protect each other from outside threats. This is where Pakistan serves as the main pillar of the arrangement. Pakistan has earned its seat at the table owing to the evolving strategic position under Sharif and Munir. Throughout his tenure, Sharif has strengthened Pakistan’s diplomatic relationships not only with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, but also with other regional powers. Munir, at the same time, oversaw Pakistan’s most significant military conflict in recent years, prompting the country’s expanding role in regional security diplomacy. Together, they bring credible diplomacy and military strength. Pakistan did not emerge as a catalyst for the agreement overnight. The foundations of the Mecca agreement were laid by Sharif and Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in Riyadh roughly a year earlier. On September 17, 2025, they signed the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The agreement declared that aggression against either country would be considered aggression against both. Building upon a nearly eight-decade-long relationship, the two countries committed to strengthening the defence alliance and mutual deterrence. That pact was a crucial achievement for Sharif’s government. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have often described their relationship as strategic and deeply rooted in shared interests. Although Pakistan’s military personnel have trained and worked alongside their Saudi counterparts for decades, Sharif’s diplomacy has transformed the relationship into a more structured partnership covering defence, investment, politics, and regional diplomacy. The September agreement essentially laid the foundation for the trilateral defence framework, now strengthening Pakistan-Saudi longstanding ties by bringing Türkiye into the alliance. Sharif does not treat Pakistan’s relationships as isolated bilateral partnerships. He refuses to choose a single ally and maintains strong ties with multiple powers. Be it Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, China, Iran, or the US, each serves different strategic interests for Pakistan. This gives Islamabad greater flexibility and independence in its foreign policy, without becoming overly dependent on any single country. The flexibility paid off in 2026 when the Iran crisis forced Pakistan into one of the most challenging diplomatic balancing acts. Pakistan is Iran’s neighbour, but it also has ties with Saudi Arabia and Türkiye. Iran shares a long border with Pakistan and longstanding economic, political, and cultural ties. A regional war involving Iran thus constituted a direct threat to Pakistan. Islamabad could have chosen to shelter behind its borders and wait for the crisis to pass; however, it chose to influence its trajectory. Sharif spoke directly with regional leaders, whereas Munir directed the security framework of the mediation initiative. On April 9, the Prime Minister’s Office stated Sharif and Munir reviewed Pakistan’s peace efforts and expressed satisfaction with the positive de-escalation achieved at that stage. The two also reiterated Pakistan’s commitment to support the parties in securing a negotiated settlement. On April 25, Sharif discussed the regional crisis and Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Prime Minister’s Office later reported that Pezeshkian extended his gratitude to Sharif, Munir, and Deputy Minister Ishaq Dar for their pivotal roles in fostering peace. A month later, the Iranian President once more reiterated his appreciation for Sharif and Munir for their efforts to bring peace to the region. This was a turning point for Sharif. He shifted Pakistan’s foreign policy from simply reacting to regional crises to actively steering their outcomes. As Sharif drew the diplomatic map, Munir gave it a military backbone. The evolution became especially evident in May 2025. The clashes between Pakistan and India transpired as the most serious direct military crisis between the two nations in decades. Following the April 22 Pahalgam attack that left 26 dead, India launched airstrikes across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Pakistan retaliated with Operation Bynyan-ul-Marsoos, which led to both sides agreeing to a ceasefire on May 10. It became a defining moment for Munir. Pakistan demonstrated the potential of its armed forces to conduct sophisticated operations under extreme pressure. It also proved that its military apparatus could impose high costs on a much larger military. That is the cornerstone of credible deterrence for Islamabad. As for Munir, the Pakistan-India conflict redefined

June 24, 1989, Comrade Jiang Zemin assumed the charge of Secretary General of the CPC just after the Tiananmen Square incident. This was orchestrated by ideological rivals, who instigated people with foreign support under the guise of corruption, inflation, political participation, and human resource development for the new economy. No doubt there were challenges, but the government was doing everything it could to control them and bring positive change to people’s lives. It required patience and time. However, the ideological rivals and foreign forces decided to exploit that window of opportunity and bring down the CPC.   Therefore, right after assuming the charge, Secretary General Jiang Zemin had to deal with Western countries’ false propaganda campaign against China. The West was propagating that China used brutal force and undermined human rights. However, it did not shake his determination to restore stability, the cornerstone of CPC policy. CPC is convinced that without stability, the country cannot move forward. After tackling it, he focused on economic reforms, especially after becoming President and paramount leader in 1993. From here, a new phase of reforms started. The CPC, with President Jiang at its core, began to juggle policies and options to sustain growth, ensure stable government revenue, and address people’s problems. Thus, President Jiang Zemin, with the guidance of elders, especially Deng Xiaoping, accelerated the reforms and the introduction of market-oriented policies. He took many innovative decisions to accelerate economic growth, enhance outreach, and strengthen international relations and security. First, he kick-started the first phase of privatization to reduce the burden on the State and spur private sector growth. The number of State-owned enterprises fell from 262,000 to 159,000. Almost 40 million people lost their jobs, but China continued the reform.  However, China’s privatization was led by a wise and smart policy. First, China identified the requirements for the private sector and SOEs to ensure a balance between tax and non-tax revenue. Second, China did not privatize critical industrial sectors or enterprises. Third, China established mechanisms to mitigate the impact on people and keep them engaged, thereby ensuring stability.   Second, President Jiang Zemin led China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). It was another landmark decision, which revolutionized China’s economic growth and development. After joining the WTO, China grew and developed by leaps and bounds. It also ushered in a new era of global economic linkages, which helped China develop rapidly and curb poverty. China is now the world’s largest trading partner, with over US$6 trillion in 2025, and the second-largest economy. Third, he prohibited the army from taking part in economic ventures.  Third, he introduced a strategy to revitalize the economy through science and education. He launched two landmark initiatives, Project 211 and Project 985, under this strategy. Project 211 was designed to build institutions for the 21st century. It was decided that 100 universities would be prepared for the 21st century.  For that purpose, 115 universities were identified. Project 985 was designed to create world-class universities, and 39 universities were under the project.   On the diplomatic front, he also achieved many successes. First, Hong Kong and Macau were reunited with the mainland. Second, he signed a friendship treaty with Russia and launched the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in collaboration with Russia. Now, the SCO is one of the world’s major organizations in a multipolar world. Fourth, he also completed China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).  However, President Jiang Zemin’s most significant work was his theory of the Three Represents: the development trend of China’s advanced productive forces, the orientation of China’s advanced culture, and the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people. The Three Represents theory is a major work of the Party, following Deng Xiaoping’s theory, in building the modern Party. It reflects the CPC’s philosophy and Chinese political culture, which emphasize evolution and reform in line with ground realities. However, the interests of the people must be the paramount guiding principle. President Jiang Zemin started work just after assuming the position of Secretary General, following Tiananmen Square.  The analysis of Three Represents highlights three important things. First, it urges the Party to better serve the people and embrace new classes. Thus, Three Represents opened the Party’s doors to new classes including entrepreneurs, businessmen, and professionals. It was necessary to diversify and give development new impetus by making the Party more inclusive. However, it sparked debate among Party members and other circles. The conservative elements of the Party were not ready to accept the business community and entrepreneurs. However, there was wider support for the inclusion within and outside the Party.  Second, Three Represents encouraged the enhanced role of science, education, and technology in leading the new phase of development. Although the revitalization of the economy through science and education was already underway, there was a need to accelerate the process further.  Third, the Party envisioned that it must strive to modernize culture in accordance with socialist values and norms.  Simultaneously, President Jiang Zemin also encountered some serious problems. First of all, relations with the USA were a constant irritant. The USA continued to interfere in Taiwan and internal affairs. The situation was further complicated by the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and the Hainan incident by USA forces. The Hainan incident was a complicated issue that threatened peace. Second, the third Taiwan Strait Crisis appeared during his tenure. On the domestic front, he had to face an intensive debate over the inclusion of business groups and entrepreneurs in the Party. Moreover, privatization, especially after accession to the WTO, generated debate in the country. However, he solved these issues with wisdom and smart policy.   In conclusion, the above discussion indicates that President Jiang Zemin assumed leadership at a critical rather than a difficult time. However, he steered the country with dedication, wisdom, and smart policies. The ultimate objective of his policies was to serve the people and build an inclusive Party in line with new realities. That’s why he is considered one of

The role of media should not be confined to disseminating news and information but must also highlight public awareness regarding climate change. The media, in its reporting, is required to use appropriate terminology and diction to raise awareness, highlight the causes, and provide a way forward. The media, in its reporting, is expected to project the environment not as a resource to be used by humans but as a living environmental and ecological process that must not be disturbed by humans. For example, while writing such reports, if the media says that natural resources are diminishing or facing extinction, it must similarly highlight that the environmental system is being affected or impacted negatively . Recent studies have also reinforced this perspective. Penz and Fill (2022) observe that ecolinguistics promotes and fosters environmental awareness while supporting and strengthening the connection between humans and nature for sustainable development. In this context, Alexander and Stibbe (2014) argue that ecolinguistics plays a key role in highlighting the relationship between humans and the environment, as well as its impact on addressing environmental challenges and shaping a sustainable future. It is pertinent to highlight that while reporting any incident about environmental degradation or natural disasters, the media, apart from reporting, is also expected to provide solutions and a way forward to help face such incidents in the future. In reports about floods, wildfires, and rising temperatures, the media is also required to provide guidance and suggestions on how to combat or lessen the impacts of such environmental changes. The reporting must not be based only on presenting news and subsequently creating fear or chaos but must also give a sense of hope among people that through various techniques and the use of technology, such natural disasters can be managed effectively. The media must not consider floods, droughts, fires, or other environmental disasters merely as natural disasters but should link such impacts with environmental changes, industrial pollution, deforestation, human intervention with nature, and so on. Fairclough (1995), in his study, states that media should cover and highlight the areas that , on the other hand, are ignored and not given consideration by the masses. Therefore, the media is expected to sensitize the masses regarding such disasters and create a way forward to combat or tackle such environmental change disasters and their impacts on people and society as a whole. On the other hand, equally important is environmental equity or justice in society. It has been widely observed and noted that in floods, droughts, disasters, and environmental changes, the major impacts are faced by the underprivileged in society. It is the role and responsibility of the media to highlight and become a voice for such voiceless people, representing them and creating a sense of ownership among the poor and marginalized sections of society. The media is also required to highlight and create awareness among people about science and technology related to the environment and provide them with knowledge that through the use of such technology, they can tackle the horrors of disasters. The study of ecolinguistics reminds the media that humans are, in no way, different from society and can never be detached from society and vice versa. Hence, media reports are also expected to discuss humans, rivers, oceans, flora, fauna, biodiversity, and the ecosystem as a whole to give them significance and bring them into the limelight of the coverage. Media reporting is also required to use environment related terminology and diction, such as environmental war, ecological emergency, and other relevant terms, in its reports to highlight environment related information. Recent studies highlight that similes and metaphors have a significant impact on human thinking. Hence, the media is encouraged to resort to this method to mould public opinion towards environmental conservation and protection. Moreover, media personnel are required to engage in investigative journalism and cover incidents and events from different angles , examining their pros and cons deeply. If there are frequent flash floods in any area, the media is expected to discuss the causes and the role of concerned authorities in handling the incidents . Media houses, along with environmental protection organizations and other stakeholders, are required to impart knowledge and training to journalists. There is also a significant role for environmental funding organizations in sensitizing media personnel. In training sessions, they are expected to invite environmental experts, scientists, and scholars who have made significant contributions in this area. Media reports and the diction used therein have great significance. They must highlight a green and stable future through sustainable development initiatives and become partners in facing the challenges and effects of environmental degradation. They must give hope to people that the media stands with them and will continue contributing its responsible and positive role. This is the major objective of ecolinguistics. Societies such as ours widely need the use of ecolinguistics in the media.

The most pitiable creature I know is not the beggar who asks for bread but the gentleman who must borrow a personality. He dresses in another man’s taste, speaks in another man’s phrases and mistakes imitation for refinement. He is everywhere respectable and nowhere original. Nations occasionally acquire the same unfortunate habit. Their politics become echoes, their ideals reflections, and their revolutions little more than borrowed costumes. There was a time when borrowing was the necessity of poverty. We borrowed machines because we had no factories, medicines because we had no laboratories, and books because we had no presses. Such borrowing was neither shameful nor unusual; indeed, civilisation itself advances through exchange. The Greeks borrowed from Egypt, the Arabs preserved and enlarged the inheritance of Greece, Europe rediscovered Aristotle through Muslim Spain, and Japan modernised by learning from the West without surrendering its soul. Borrowing knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. Borrowing identity is the beginning of decline. There is another form of borrowing that no customs official can intercept and no tariff can discourage. It enters silently through the imagination. A society begins by borrowing opinions, then aspirations, then indignation. Before long, it borrows its heroes, its villains, its vocabulary and, eventually, its revolutions. It ceases to ask, “What does our history require?” and instead asks, “Whose history should we imitate?” That, I fear, is the predicament into which much of Pakistan’s public discourse has drifted. During the past several weeks, social media has been flooded with admiration for the recent political resistance witnessed across the border in India. Video clips have travelled faster than thoughtful analysis. Slogans have crossed the Wagah frontier with greater ease than ideas. Among countless young Pakistanis one question has become almost fashionable, Why can’t Pakistan have a movement like this? The question is understandable. It is also profoundly revealing. Hidden within it is an assumption that our political future must resemble somebody else’s present; that history unfolds according to a universal script; that every nation matures by repeating the experience of another. It is an assumption born not of confidence but of intellectual dependency. The tragedy, therefore, is not that Pakistanis admire another people’s courage. Every decent society can appreciate courage wherever it appears. The tragedy is that many have become convinced that courage itself must now be imported. We seem increasingly unable to recognise our own political inheritance unless it first receives foreign approval. This habit is hardly confined to politics. It has become the defining condition of our intellectual life. We borrow theories from European universities before examining our own social realities. We borrow ideological fashions from America before asking whether they illuminate Pakistani society. We borrow debates from social media and mistake them for scholarship. We consume outrage manufactured elsewhere and wear it as though it were tailored for our own circumstances. We have become, in the deepest sense of the phrase, tenants in the house of our own imagination. The irony is painful. No civilisation lacking confidence in itself has ever become creative. Creation begins where imitation ends. Shakespeare borrowed stories but produced Hamlet. Iqbal studied Nietzsche and Bergson yet remained unmistakably Iqbal. Muhammad Ali Jinnah mastered the constitutional traditions of Britain but transformed them into a political movement rooted in the aspirations of Indian Muslims. Great minds borrow raw material; they do not borrow finished identities. The same principle governs nations. Civilisations borrow in order to create. Declining societies borrow in order to imitate. Perhaps nowhere is this confusion more visible than in our understanding of resistance. Resistance has become one of the most romantic words in modern political vocabulary. It evokes images of heroic crowds, defiant slogans, dramatic confrontations and triumphant victories. Social media, with its appetite for spectacle, has transformed resistance into a global performance. Every protest becomes a cinematic narrative; every confrontation seeks an audience; every slogan aspires to immortality through a hashtag. But history is not written in hashtags. Nor are nations transformed by theatrical moments alone. The anthropologist Leila Abu-Lughod offered an important warning nearly three decades ago in her influential essay The Romance of Resistance. She argued that scholars often romanticise resistance as though every act of opposition were inherently emancipatory. Such a view, she suggested, ignores the complex relationships of power, culture and history within which resistance acquires meaning. Acts of dissent cannot be detached from the societies that produce them. They are rooted in particular institutions, historical memories and cultural conditions. Her insight deserves careful attention today. To ask why Pakistan does not produce resistance identical to India’s is rather like asking why the Indus refuses to flow like the Ganges. Rivers obey their own geography. Nations obey their own history. Every meaningful political movement is shaped by its unique historical circumstances. The French Revolution emerged from fiscal collapse and aristocratic privilege. The American Revolution arose from disputes over representation and imperial authority. South Africa’s democratic transition was forged in the struggle against apartheid. None of these experiences can simply be photocopied for another society. History does not distribute identical examinations to different nations. Each country answers its own questions. Yet we continue searching for borrowed answers. Perhaps this is because borrowed revolutions are emotionally satisfying. They spare us the difficult labour of self-examination. It is always easier to admire another nation’s struggle than to confront the unfinished responsibilities of our own. Admiration demands nothing. Citizenship demands everything. That distinction has become blurred in contemporary Pakistan. Our public imagination has fallen in love with the romance of beginning anew. Every few years another movement captures our attention. We invest it with almost mythical expectations. We hope it will accomplish what institutions, constitutions and patient political reform have failed to achieve. We long for redemption through spectacle. But mature nations are not built upon permanent excitement. They are built upon permanent institutions. Hannah Arendt observed in On Revolution that the enduring achievement of successful revolutions lies not in the destruction of an old order but in the establishment of a

As a journalist, my entire professional life has been dedicated to defending freedom of expression, civil liberties, and an independent press. Throughout more than two decades in journalism, I have firmly believed that the right to express one’s views is a fundamental human right, protected not only by Pakistan’s Constitution but also by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the laws of most democratic nations. However, no right in any civilized society is absolute. Every freedom comes with responsibility. When freedom is divorced from responsibility, it ceases to be a force for reform and instead becomes a source of disorder. That is why every mature democracy has established legal and ethical boundaries to ensure that freedom of expression serves the public interest rather than undermining it. The rise of social media has revolutionized the flow of information. Today, an ordinary citizen possesses communication power that was once reserved for major media organizations. A smartphone, a short video, and a single click can spread information, allegations, or opinions across the globe within minutes. Used responsibly, this technology promotes transparency, accountability, and public awareness. Used recklessly, without verification or evidence, it can inflict irreparable damage on individuals, institutions, and society. The recent controversy involving the University of the Punjab illustrates this challenge. A video circulated on social media in which serious allegations were made against several faculty members. Shortly after the video surfaced, the university administration issued an official statement rejecting the allegations and referred the matter to the police, the Cyber Crime Investigation Agency, and other relevant authorities for investigation. The episode also exposed another troubling aspect of today’s digital environment. Several freelance vloggers and social media accounts amplified the allegations, yet many failed to present the university’s official response with equal prominence. One of the fundamental principles of journalism is to provide all concerned parties with an opportunity to present their position before public opinion is shaped. Based on the information currently available and my own research, the viral video did not publicly present independently verifiable evidence supporting the allegations. Nor has it been established that a formal written complaint was submitted through the university’s prescribed grievance mechanism before the video was released. If the ongoing investigation establishes otherwise, those findings must be accepted with the same commitment to fairness and truth. Equally important is ensuring that the investigation is not limited solely to the allegations themselves. If it is established that any individual or group deliberately misled students, orchestrated a coordinated campaign, or exploited social media to damage the reputation of an institution or its members, those responsible should also be held accountable under the law. Conversely, if the allegations are substantiated, the complainants deserve full justice without discrimination. Accountability must apply equally to everyone. This case extends far beyond a single university. It reflects the growing problem of irresponsible social media usage. Increasingly, individuals bypass legal forums, institutional complaint mechanisms, and investigative authorities, choosing instead to take their grievances directly to social media. Within minutes, a viral post can shape public opinion, damage reputations, and, in many cases, allow the “court of social media” to pronounce its verdict long before any formal investigation has concluded. Such a trend blurs the line between freedom of expression and irresponsible expression. Recognizing these risks, many developed countries have introduced stricter regulations governing digital platforms. The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) require major technology companies to act swiftly against illegal content, terrorist propaganda, child sexual abuse material, counterfeit products, and other harmful content. These laws also require greater transparency in algorithms, stronger user protections, and comprehensive risk assessments, with violations carrying multi-billion-euro penalties. The United States follows a different constitutional model. While the First Amendment provides broad protection for freedom of speech, this does not mean that every form of online content is beyond regulation. Social media companies continue to enforce community standards against hate speech, incitement to violence, terrorism-related content, child exploitation, financial fraud, and other unlawful activities. Several U.S. states are also developing legislation addressing AI-generated deepfakes, child online safety, and digital privacy. In Pakistan, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) provides the principal legal framework for addressing cybercrime. However, concerns have repeatedly been raised by political parties, journalists, and human rights organizations regarding aspects of its implementation. This underlines the importance not only of effective legislation but also of its transparent, impartial, and constitutional enforcement. The rapid rise of artificial intelligence, deepfake technology, disinformation, and organized online propaganda has made responsible journalism and responsible social media use more important than ever. Freedom of expression remains the cornerstone of every democratic society, but using that freedom to damage individuals or institutions without credible evidence serves neither journalism nor democracy. Pakistan, like many other countries, faces the challenge of preserving free expression while preventing the misuse of digital platforms. The objective should never be to silence legitimate criticism or suppress dissent. Instead, it should be to ensure that freedom is exercised with honesty, evidence, and accountability.   Freedom of expression is the soul of democracy. Yet when it is separated from truth, integrity, and responsibility, it no longer remains freedom—it becomes disorder. A civilized society is one where the law protects those who speak the truth while holding accountable those who knowingly spread falsehoods. That balance represents the true spirit of free expression and remains the hallmark of every democratic, civilized, and dignified nation.    

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