Over the past several years, mutual defense treaties have been returning after decades of slumber.
Finland and Sweden joined NATO; Russia and Belarus upgraded their pact to include nuclear deterrence; and an agreement signed in 2024 brings North Korea and Russia together if war breaks out.
Each of these is significant. However, what is forming today is far bigger than what has happened so far. Mutual defense treaties are making a comeback at a moment when the world is gripped by war. Just this summer, three conflicts took place back-to-back (India-Pakistan in May, Israel-Iran in June, and Cambodia-Thailand in July). The idea of introducing mutual defense pacts into this environment only raises the probability of a dangerous event forming with global implications.
What are governments planning for? And what doors are being opened as mutual defense treaties return?
đ GEOPOLITICAL FORESIGHT ON FUTURE SHOCKS
The last time America signed a mutual defense treaty was in the 1950s. Since then, as globalization sped up, government logic shifted. Trade deals replaced defense pacts in national importance. Even those that remained, like US-Japan or Article 5 in NATO, drifted to the periphery as few believed they would ever be activated. Yet today, as Japanese fighter jets are deployed to NATO bases and Germany prepares for war by 2029 (most likely with Russia), the question is no longer if the treaties are needed but whether nations are ready to fight.
As the new pacts show, some nations are ready to get bloody, introducing a new status quo that eclipses what existed before WW1.
New Fault Lines
Over the past week, two mutual defense pacts have formedâone formally signed, one still being discussed.
SAUDI ARABIA-PAKISTAN
The first, signed on September 18, is between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This is nothing short of a geopolitical curveball. It was unexpected, and it completely upends Eurasiaâs geopolitics and economics. Under the new pact, dubbed the âStrategic Mutual Defense Agreement,â both nations will come to each otherâs aid if war breaks out. An act of aggression against one will be treated as an act of aggression against both.
This is a stunning development. It comes on the heels of Israelâs strike on Qatarâand growing calls throughout the region for an Arab NATO or a joint-task force to âmanageâ Israel.
For Saudi Arabia, turning to Pakistan at this moment is quite âcurious.â What is Riyadh preparing for? There are only two possibilities here. Either a regional war with Iran, as the hostilities between Tel Aviv and Tehran are far from over. Or, Muslim states uniting against Israel if the Israeli government crosses their red linesâlike striking multiple targets in Doha. Both would permanently change the dynamics of the region. Meanwhile, for Pakistan, it has little to loseâand much to gain. From once being viewed as âalmostâ a failed state, Islamabad is now being eyed as a âprotectorâ of countries.
Behind this, however, is a separate channel: nuclear weapons. Pakistan is the only nuclear-armed state in the Muslim world. And, Saudi Arabia has made it clear: if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will get one too. The mutual defense pact with Pakistan could give Riyadh access to nuclear technology and cooperation without all the conditions imposed by the US.
The question of the US is also important.
Instead of leaning more on America for defense and security, Saudi Arabia is turning to Pakistan and regional neighbors. The Saudi government is rethinking its reliance on Washington, perhaps worried that America First could eventually cause America to step away from its security commitments. Equally plausible is that Arab capitals are slowly debating how to roll back the US footprint so they can respond to Israel without limits.
Surrounding all this: a few years ago, the US and Saudi Arabia were exploring their own mutual defense pact, an agreement that was almost inked but was derailed by the October 7th attacks.
AUSTRALIA-PAPUA NEW GUINEA
The second mutual defense pact was supposed to be signed by the leaders of Australia and Papua New Guinea, introducing a new collective defense equation in the Indo-Pacific. Unlike the Saudi Arabia-Pakistan deal, the Australia-Papua New Guinea setup is different.
It is about Australia building a new âbufferâ between itself and China if a future war takes place.
Many have poured cold water on the idea that China would ever make a play for Australia, including former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating, who has repeatedly said the distance is too far and Chinese forces would be spread too thin.
Yet, this is not stopping the successive Australian governments from pushing forward with initiatives to shield against China. There is AUKUS, new US-backed rare earth supply chains, and now a mutual defense idea with Papua New Guinea.
For Australia, however, âbuffering against Chinaâ is not about just protecting its borders. It is about introducing a new equation in Asia. Building on last yearâs announcement that Canberra will establish its largest navy since World War 2, the deal with Papua New Guinea could be expanded to other nations, particularly those bordering on the South China Sea, to rebuff China. If Australiaâand unofficially, by extension the USâare guarding Asian states with mutual defense treaties (i.e., Australia-Philippines), will China think twice about making a move?
The security terrain is rapidly changing. Within a short period of time, Asia could be littered with mutual defense pacts, from the likes of Australia, creating a dangerous situation where a war between two nations could suddenly draw in several, purely on the basis of contracts.
NEW SHOCKWAVES
The shockwaves of the new mutual defense pacts are tremendousâto put it mildly. They cannot all be fit within a single insight. The drums of war are beating louder than ever, and nations are not trying to reduce the heat; they are instead introducing new equations that raise the prospects of a global war.
What is starting today could quickly snowball into nations across the world inking new defense pacts or expanding their existing architecture. Might Japan and Taiwan ink a mutual defense treaty? What about India and Indonesia? And in Europe, as ideas are floated like giving Ukraine Article 5 protections even without Kyiv joining NATO, the stage is set for NATO to expand its umbrella in a new way without formal accession.
Equally important is the jurisdiction of the new mutual defense treaties.
In todayâs world, a cyber attack, like what has hit Jaguar Land Rover, paralyzing global production, could be considered an act of war. Meanwhile, as trade wars morph into economic wars, could a government invoke a mutual defense treaty because of tariffs or sanctions? These are âscenariosâ that need to be top of mind for the countries signing the new pacts, and the range of businesses and governments that have to adapt to them.
And, within all of this, is a comment that Russia made shortly after the US struck key nuclear sites in Iran: a range of nations were ready to âsupplyâ their nuclear weapons to Iran. This is not a formal pact but is just as significant, and could represent the start of a new grey nuclear arms buildup.
The return of mutual defense pacts makes planning for the future infinitely more complicated.
Take India. For at least a decade, India has joined the US and China as Saudi Arabiaâs most strategic partnersâthe most important states for Riyadh to cultivate relations with. But with the flick of a pen, the entire India-Saudi Arabia relationship has permanently changed. The entire Indian geopolitical strategy to deal with Pakistan has been disrupted. Just in May, India and Pakistan went to war, their worst fighting since 1999. The door remains open to yet another round of missiles being lobbed. However, will India strike Pakistan if it risks drawing Saudi Arabia into the fight? Is Saudi Arabia prepared to strike India on behalf of Pakistan? Variables like this were never on the table before. And, specifically for India, is India prepared to import oil and trade with a nation that is now standing with Pakistan?
A single defense pact could ricochet across economies, oil markets, and Arab capitals in the most astonishing ways. The new mutual defense treaties could literally fracture the world.
Of course, there may be a silver lining.
The more pacts that form, the more countries may hesitate to launch a war. Yet, this is exactly the line of thinking that Europe operated with for decades in regards to Russia. If Moscow did strike somewhere on the continent, the economic cost would be too big for Russia to sustain. Economics would deter geopolitics. This was proven false. Now, assuming that mutual defense pacts will have the same effect, could prove disastrous.
Conclusion
In a world where war cannot be avoided, nations are seeking insurance. If the enemy does strike or invade, what guarantees the most protection? And, what may provide the most deterrence?
Without saying it explicitly, Saudi Arabia now stands under a nuclear umbrella (with Pakistan). Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has activated a âcollective defense bodyââestablished when the GCC was set upâto drive a united response after the hit in Doha.
Every nation is thinking differently as crises worsen. The immediate solution is to lock hands and blur borders. A mutual defense pact between Australia and Papua New Guinea will also mean that Australiaâs border is expanding in a new way. Nations that Canberra protects may end up becoming de facto parts of Australiaâeven if purely economically (e.g., Australia getting exclusive access to the resources, mimicking Americaâs moves from Ukraine to Congo).
Behind all this should be a wake-up call for global stakeholders. The fires raging today may be only the opening act. Governments are moving the pieces into place for a future black swan event that affects them, their region, or the world. The remaining stability in the fuel tank is almost gone. As geopolitics reigns, the new mutual defense pacts could expand beyond military, directing the flow of goods, services, and capital. This means the return of mutual defense treaties could redraw the global map, and integrate countries in ways that make the return of the old world increasingly impossible.
-ABISHUR PRAKASH AKA. MR. GEOPOLITICS
Mr. Geopolitics is the property of Abishur Prakash/The Geopolitical Business, Inc., and is protected under Canadian Copyright Law. This includes, but is not limited to: ideas, perspectives, expressions, concepts, etc. Any use of the insights, including sharing or interpretation, partly or wholly, requires explicit written permission.
Have questions or thoughts? Letâs talk: mrgeopolitics@substack.com
If you like Mr. Geopolitics, your colleagues might too.
Feel like doing something unique for somebody important?