The Reality of Pacts: Empty Promises of Diplomacy

In the magnificent world of diplomacy, nations speak the language of friendship and trust, followed by the treaties, agreements, or pacts that promise solidarity, resilience, and cooperation. These pacts are signed and agreed upon in a spirit of warmth and confidence, marked by gestures of goodwill, photographs, and cordial handshakes; however, the dark truth lies deep in the shifting interests of nations.

Illustration by The Geostrata

History reveals the colder side of these promises. Alliances that seem loyal and powerful turn silent in crucial situations; there is an invisible clause in every agreement that says, ‘as long as it suits us’.

THE ILLUSION OF AGREEMENTS

The glorified pacts and agreements have always been a weapon of self-interest that nations agree upon as a strategic move against the shifting world. Modern partnerships like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan illustrate the reality clearly. The relationship between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is rooted in shared faith, strengthened through military and economic cooperation, and sustained through cultural and strategic alignment. After the Taliban returned to Afghanistan, the geopolitics of South Asia were reshaped. 

Pakistan faced instability and isolation during this period, and the support from Saudi Arabia was expected, but Riyadh remained silent and detached. This silence spoke louder than words and revealed the truth of alliances, friendships, pacts, and historical bonds.

Every nation has its priorities, like Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030- to improve Western relations and create a balance between China, the US, and Iran, and hence providing a helping hand to Pakistan did not exist in the plan. This mirrors that in the world of diplomacy, friendships arrive with boundaries of interests.

LESSONS FROM THE PAST

History is filled with alliances that did not prove their loyalty in the moment of need. During World War II, when Germany invaded Poland in 1939, Poland trusted the security guarantees by Britain and France, yet the help arrived late, and Poland had already fallen.

In the Cold War era, Washington's partnership with Iran and Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s was driven only due to Soviet influence and the fight against terrorism; simultaneously, the interest shifted. U.S.-trained Afghan Mujahideen terrorists to counter the soviet, and a decade later, the same group was announced as a threat to peace.

The Arab League, formed to promote unity in Arab nations, has also gone through tensions and strains due to individual nation interests. The crisis in Yemen and Libya received divided responses, which indicates that alliances are not permanent homes. Even in the NATO alliance, there are disagreements when national interests collide. 

REASONS FOR FAILURE OF PROMISES

Diplomatic pacts break due to evolving priorities. The responsibility of each state is survival in the political, economic, and territorial domains. As national interest always comes first, alliances for military protection, trade, or geopolitical benefit fade when risk or threats pose in national interest. Self-preservation over solidarity.

Due to changing power dynamics, a powerful partner today becomes a risk tomorrow. The rise of China, the US, and Russia has forced nations to realign their alliances.

The economic dependency of nations that depend on trade and oil cannot hesitate to take sides. A great example is Saudi Arabia, which balances oil partnership with the West and emerging Asian markets. Further, public opinions and domestic politics supporting an 'inappropriate' ally can bring backlashes to the leader in his nation and disturb the internal stability.

Mistakes in Foreign policy can lead to domestic criticism. There is a lack of accountability as most international treaties and pacts are broken, and no global courts can enforce loyalty. 

BEYOND BETRAYAL

Diplomacy means avoiding disputes, wars through negotiation instead of bloodshed. Nations maintain a bond by supporting through aid, scheduling visits by ministers, signing security deals, and practising joint military exercises. The other side of diplomacy is the disillusionment seen in citizens after a historic partnership is broken due to shifting interests.

This is the emotional betrayal as generations grow trusting in fraternal ties with the historic ally nation. The major betrayals are felt by small nations around the world; only need is to make themselves powerful enough to stand alone.

Pacts, agreements, and alliances are all valuable tools, but they must not be replaced by a need to be self-reliant. Military preparedness, economic independence, and diplomatic flexibility guarantee survival in all circumstances. Nations work on illusions of friendship to maintain their stability in the geopolitical world through summits, bilateral partnerships, and statements. 

The failure to maintain a pact which had history may not always symbolise betrayal, but can also be a step towards realigning and reassessing priorities and reflecting evolution. From another perspective, refusal to join a pact is a strategic independence. In this fragile world,  strength lies in honouring and maintaining pacts and treaties instead of abandoning them. Every signed partnership carries a sense of hope- the potential to transform lives and shape nations.

This promise should remain at the heart of every diplomatic decision because diplomacy's true measure lies not in the number of agreements signed but in the integrity with which they are upheld. Is it possible to rebuild trust once a pact is broken?

---

BY SHRIYA SAWANT

TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com