Business Recorder Editorials 11th August 2026

The Makkah Accord

EDITORIAL: On the 7 August with the eyes of the world focused on Makkah the heads of government of the three largest Sunni countries; notably, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey formally signed a defence pact with a clause similar to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Article 5 clause that stipulates that an attack against one member may be treated as an attack against all other members obligating each to assist the attacked member with whatever action any member country may deem necessary.

The NATO clause leaves the final decision on how to act or merely to condemn to each member country; however, as the Makkah Accord has not yet been shared with the media, it is not quite clear as to what is the exact obligation of each member country in case one member is attacked.

Speculation has reached a fever pitch with some arguing that the Accord is directed at Iran subsequent to its retaliatory strikes against US and Israel that severely damaged US bases in the Gulf countries as well as their civilian infrastructure while others point their finger at Israel, based on America’s unquestioning support for even patently illegal Israeli actions in the region, including against US allies (an example being the 9 September 2025 attack on Doha). This prompted Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar to clarify that it is a defensive pact and not targeted against any country.

Two observations are critical. First, the Makkah Accord is reminiscent of the 1980s US thinking that was supportive of NATO-style multilateral collective defence pacts in Asia, including the Middle East (as successors to SEATO and CENTO that collapsed in the 1970s) but was abandoned in favour of direct US military ties, arms sales, and access agreement that post-28 February compromised due to Iranian strikes.

And, secondly, Turkiye’s President Erdogan has offered membership to other countries in the region with the objective of strengthening ties between Muslim nations and, as per some analysts, to provide a religious context to irritants posed by non-Muslim nations against their Muslim minorities. It is relevant to note that on 5 August 2026, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), on occasions hesitant to take bold decisions against India, issued a statement marking the seventh anniversary of Azad Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and called for India’s reversal of its unilateral measures, urging respect for Kashmiri self-determination.

The three countries bring much to the table. Pakistan, of course, brings a battle-hardened military as well as its nuclear arsenal - the only Muslim nuclear country to-date courtesy the launch of the programme by Z A Bhutto followed by Nawaz Sharif’s decision to proceed with the Chaghi tests in spite of considerable US pressure at the time.

Turkiye, a NATO member, possesses a formidable defence industrial base; chiefly, Baykar’s drone ecosystem and the KAAN fighter programme. And, Saudi Arabia has the capital depth to fund large-scale defence localization, and has already engaged in joint military protocols with Pakistan. Thus, it stands to reason that the three countries can benefit considerably from this accord and one would hope that Pakistan’s defence industry is subsequently upgraded that would make the country less reliant on expensive foreign defence imports.

However, as matters stand today, out of the three member countries Pakistan’s economy remains fragile, which is a source of serious concern. Last month, Mohammad Aurangzeb, the Federal Finance Minister, formally requested the US for a 10 billion-dollar bilateral exchange stabilisation support facility, which provides dollars, swaps or guarantees to support reserves or steady currencies, for five years aimed to boost reserves, stabilise the rupee and reduce reliance on the IMF.

While this may be construed as borrowing from Paul to pay off Peter, thereby seriously compromising the spirit of the pledge by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that the ongoing IMF loan would be the last in the country’s history, yet the economy remains burdened with not only negative geopolitical factors associated with the Middle East conflict but is also hostage to heavy reliance on borrowing to fund a current expenditure that has little positive impact on the growth rate or unemployment levels.

There is, therefore, an urgent need to slash current expenditure by at least 2 to 3 trillion rupees, that would allow for a less contractionary fiscal policy, thereby jumpstarting industrial growth and, any investment that maybe forthcoming as a consequence of the Makkah Accord, to channel it into high value-adding industries with an export potential rather than continuing to rely on exporting what is surplus to our domestic needs.

Ending torture

EDITORIAL: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan’s observation, at a roundtable held as part of its Against Torture campaign, that torture persists despite the enactment of the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act, 2022, is a sobering reminder that legislation, however progressive, cannot by itself transform institutional practices. Four years after the law was enacted, reports of custodial torture and ill-treatment continue to surface, exposing a troubling gap between legal commitments and administrative reality.

The prohibition of torture is a constitutional imperative and also an obligation under international human rights law. Equally important is the fact that it is central to the credibility of the criminal justice system. A state that permits torture, whether through commission or omission, undermines public confidence in its institutions.

Investigative agencies that rely on coercion rather than professional evidence-gathering compromise both justice and the integrity of the judicial process, producing unreliable confessions while discouraging proper investigation and effective policing. The concerns raised during the HRCP consultation, therefore, deserve urgent attention.

As the well-known rights activist Hina Jilani rightly observed, torture is not confined to physical violence. Psychological abuse, prolonged isolation, intimidation and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment can inflict equally lasting harm and must be recognised as such within the enforcement framework.

Equally serious is the absence of clear operational procedures for law enforcement agencies. A law criminalizing torture cannot be effectively implemented unless police officers, prison authorities and investigators are equipped with practical guidelines for preventing, documenting, investigating and responding to such violations.

The discussion also highlighted the more fundamental problem of accountability. Torture thrives where there is little or no prospect of punishment. Independent investigations into custodial abuse, prompt prosecution of offenders, and credible oversight mechanisms are indispensable if the law is to serve as a genuine deterrent.

Victims, too, must be able to report abuse without fear of reprisals, while judicial safeguards against arbitrary detention require far more rigorous enforcement.

Equally significant was the reminder that concerns highlighted by the UN Committee against Torture nearly a decade ago continue to feature in Pakistan’s latest review. Their persistence points to structural deficiencies that remain almost completely unaddressed.

The recommendations emerging from the consultation therefore merit serious consideration. Prison rules should be aligned with constitutional guarantees and international human rights standards, while the internment centres should either be abolished or brought within the civilian prison system under independent oversight.

Ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) would further strengthen transparency by establishing an independent preventive mechanism with the authority to conduct regular inspections of all places of detention.

The larger challenge, therefore, is one of implementation rather than legislation. As mentioned earlier, Pakistan’s anti-torture framework is no longer lacking in legislation; it is lacking in implementation, political will and institutional accountability.

Unless these deficiencies are addressed, custodial violence will remain an enduring stain on the justice system. While the primary responsibility rests with the state, civil society, the legal profession, the media and educational institutions also have a vital role in fostering a culture that rejects torture in all its forms and demands accountability wherever it occurs.