PAKISTAN has recently taken on some of the heaviest security commitments in its history through multiple regional agreements. Such pacts bind the state for years, and they can draw a country into unintended conflicts. The language of these agreements happens to be broad, and their application remains unclear.
When the Houthis struck Saudi Arabia last month, the Foreign Office in Islamabad said that no military response under the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement was under discussion. That position was reasonable, but it also showed how much interpretation these texts allow.
People, through their elected repre- sentatives deserve to know who decides what counts as an attack, and on what terms Pakistan would respond militarily, if at all.
Pakistan’s history shows what parliament can do. In 2015, when Saudi Arabia had asked for troops, ships and aircraft for the war in Yemen, parliament had debated for five days and voted unanimously in favour of neutrality. That decision protected the country from open-ended involvement, and it carried legitimacy because it had been publicly argued.
Other states treat such agreements in this way as well, indicating that international agreements need parliamentary approval to take effect. All defence pacts should be tabled before parliament, and the relevant standing committees should review them in closed sessions if diplomatic sensitivity is involved.
The principal obligations should then be made public. Commitments that bind the nation to any arrangement should be debated by the people who represent it.
Shanza Munir
Islamabad
Published in Dawn, October 30th, 2026
