Ambiguities in Pak-Saudi Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement: A Discourse Analysis

Abstract

This paper examines discursive ambiguity within the Pak-Saudi Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement and how the linguistic constructions, omissions and strategic vagueness are used in defining and enforcing the bilateral security agreements. Based on the agreement as a primary source of data, the analysis utilized Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and its three-dimensional model created by Fairclough to analyze the textual aspects of the agreement, the practices of interpretation, and the power relations that may have led to the formulation of the pact. The study has three main aims which include establishment of the main ambiguities of the agreement discourse, exploration of their consequences to bilateral military cooperation and regional security, and establishment of policy-based suggestions that would promote clarity, transparency, and legitimacy in its operations. The results indicate the creation of ambiguity by non-specific terminology, general security clauses, and the lack of explicit implementation and accountability mechanisms- all the trends that are typical of strategic ambiguity that is prevalent in the field of defense diplomacy. These discursive characteristics introduce a flexibility of interpretations but can also bring about a lack of convergence of expectations, a decreased security coordination within the institution and a possible misperception of the wider Middle Eastern and South Asian security setting. The paper suggests better articulation of the role of defense, documents available publicly to explain the process, and enhanced internal means of decision-making.