Saudi-Pakistan defence pact exposes neocolonial military alliances amid global arms race and regional instability

Indigenous Baloch and Pashtun communities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s Hijaz region have long resisted state militarisation, framing it as an external imposition disrupting traditional lifeways. Baloch activists, for instance, link Pakistan’s arms deals to the suppression of their autonomy movements, while Saudi tribes historically viewed foreign military entanglements as threats to tribal sovereignty. These perspectives are systematically excluded from geopolitical narratives, which privilege state-centric security frameworks over communal self-determination.

The Saudi-Pakistan defence pact echoes 20th-century Cold War alliances, where Pakistan served as a US-Saudi proxy in Afghanistan, reinforcing a cycle of militarised intervention. The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent US-Saudi funding of mujahideen groups laid the groundwork for today’s regional instability. Additionally, the 1965 and 1971 wars between India and Pakistan were shaped by Cold War alignments, showing how defence pacts often exacerbate rather than resolve conflicts. The pact also reflects Saudi Arabia’s post-1973 oil boom strategy to project power beyond its borders.

In West African Sahelian states, defence pacts with former colonial powers (e.g., France’s *Opération Barkhane*) have led to prolonged instability and resource extraction, mirroring Saudi-Pakistan dynamics. Latin American experiences with US-backed military regimes (e.g., Operation Condor) demonstrate how such alliances often prioritise foreign interests over democratic governance. Meanwhile, in Southeast Asia, non-aligned movements like ASEAN’s *Zone of Peace* concept offer alternatives to militarised alliances, though these are rarely considered in Gulf-South Asian contexts.

Research on arms races (e.g., Richardson’s model) shows that bilateral defence pacts often trigger security dilemmas, where each side’s actions are perceived as threats, escalating conflict. Studies on Pakistan’s military economy reveal that defence spending crowds out social development, with IMF data showing a 20% decline in education and health budgets since 2010. Saudi Arabia’s arms imports, meanwhile, correlate with increased civilian casualties in Yemen, as documented by ACLED and UN reports. The pact also aligns with Saudi Vision 2030’s militarisation goals, which prioritise defence over diversification.

Pakistani poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s works, such as *Subh-e-Azadi* (Dawn of Freedom), critique the militarisation of postcolonial states, framing it as a betrayal of revolutionary ideals. Saudi artist Ahmed Mater’s *Magnetism* series explores the spiritual void of oil-backed militarism, depicting weapons as symbols of distorted power. In both traditions, art serves as a counter-narrative to state propaganda, exposing the human cost of defence pacts. These perspectives are marginalised in favour of narratives that glorify military strength.

If current trends continue, Pakistan’s debt-to-GDP ratio (projected to reach 75% by 2025) will force further arms purchases, deepening its dependency on Gulf patrons and Western creditors. Scenario modelling suggests that Saudi-Pakistan defence ties could escalate into a regional arms race, drawing in India and Iran, with catastrophic humanitarian consequences. Conversely, a shift toward non-aligned security frameworks (e.g., regional disarmament treaties) could reduce conflict risks. The pact also risks entangling Pakistan in Saudi-led conflicts, as seen in Yemen, where Pakistani pilots have allegedly been deployed.

Yemeni civilians, particularly in Houthi-controlled areas, bear the brunt of Saudi-led bombings, yet their suffering is rarely centred in coverage of Saudi-Pakistan defence ties. Pakistani labourers in Saudi Arabia, including those in the military sector, face systemic exploitation, with reports of wage theft and unsafe working conditions. Women’s rights activists in both countries, such as Pakistan’s *Aurat March* organisers, have condemned militarisation for reinforcing patriarchal structures. These voices are systematically excluded from geopolitical discourse, which prioritises state and corporate interests.