A possible invitation to join the Mecca defense pact would be an “important test” of the Bangladesh government’s “Bangladesh First” foreign policy, former senior US diplomat Jon Danilowicz has said, stressing that Dhaka should weigh both the benefits and risks before making any decision.

“I think this is an important test for Bangladesh,” Danilowicz, a former deputy chief of mission at the US Embassy in Dhaka, said while virtually joining a program on the Mecca Pact organised by Nagarik Coalition at a seminar hall in Karwan Bazar on Monday.

“The BNP government ran on a platform of ‘Bangladesh First.’ They've talked about ‘Bangladesh First’ since coming to office. And this is a chance for them to show how they define ‘Bangladesh First’ and how they will translate that broad policy objective into concrete decisions,” he said.

Danilowicz, however, stressed that Bangladesh has not formally been asked to join the pact.

“Nobody's asked Bangladesh to join yet, at least formally,” he said. “So it's good, I think, that the discussion is taking place.”

He argued that major national security decisions should be subjected to public debate.

“National security issues should have citizen input. They should be widely discussed, whether joining an alliance like this, whether procuring advanced fighter aircraft for billions of dollars,” he said.

“These are important decisions in a democracy that the people should have a say on.”

Danilowicz, a retired US State Department Senior Foreign Service officer, served three diplomatic tours in Bangladesh, including as political and economic counselor from 2007 to 2011 and later as deputy chief of mission.

He also served extensively in Pakistan, including as US consul general in Peshawar, and held senior diplomatic assignments in South Sudan.

He cautioned that his assessment of Washington's thinking was personal and not based on current US government information.

“Even though I worked for the US government for over three decades, I no longer speak for the US government, nor do I have access to any inside information about what's going on within the US government,” he said. “So it's informed speculation.”

Danilowicz said he believed Washington was unlikely to have been caught off guard when the agreement was signed.

“This didn't come as a surprise to the US government,” he said, adding that he was “sure that there were consultations between the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan before this agreement was signed,” as well as consultations with Beijing.

“While many people in the public or around the world may have been surprised, I'm pretty sure the United States was not.”

From Washington's perspective, he said, one of the central questions would be whether the arrangement reduces or increases the chances of another Middle Eastern conflict.

“The first question is: does something like this agreement, this alliance, make future conflict in the Middle East more or less likely?”

Since all three countries maintain strong relations with Washington, Danilowicz said the US would not want their security weakened.

“If there's a net benefit for their security from this, I think that would be seen positively in the US,” he said.

The arrangement could also fit with longstanding calls in Washington for regional countries to shoulder more responsibility for their own security, allowing the US to devote greater resources to the Indo-Pacific, he said.

At the same time, Danilowicz said Washington would likely examine how the pact affects China, Israel and India.

“I'm sure there is concern about what China's view is of this and how this affects the global balance vis-à-vis the United States and China,” he said.

There would also be questions about “what this means for Israel's security” and, particularly if Bangladesh were eventually to join, “what this would mean for India.”

Danilowicz nevertheless cautioned against viewing the pact as an automatic mechanism for war.

“This Makkah Pact is meant to be a defensive alliance. It's meant to prevent war and conflict,” he said. “It's a collective security arrangement, which is fully authorized under the UN Charter.”

Drawing a comparison with NATO, he said collective defense provisions are often misunderstood.

“There's nothing automatic about a reaction by any of the other member states to an invocation of Article 5,” he said of NATO's collective defense clause.

“It's not as if the moment the first shot is fired, then everyone mobilizes.”

Individual members, he added, retain their sovereign decision-making authority and domestic procedures for authorizing military action.

Turning to Pakistan, Danilowicz said Islamabad was unlikely to view the pact primarily as an instrument against India.

“I don't think that Pakistan sees this primarily as a deterrent against India,” he said. “Ultimately, Pakistan has its own deterrent. And Turkey and Saudi Arabia don't add much to that.”

Nor did he expect Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to become an automatic umbrella for other pact members.

“I don't see a situation whereby Pakistan is going to extend the nuclear deterrent to the other alliance members,” he said.

For Pakistan, he said, closer ties with Turkey and Saudi Arabia also carry “diplomatic value,” alongside economic, geopolitical and prestige considerations.

Danilowicz said rapid expansion of the pact may itself prove difficult because its existing members first need to build the institutional and command structures necessary to make it function.

“There's a lot of work that has to be done to put in place the structures that would govern this alliance,” he said. “It's going to be a lengthy and costly process to put this together.”

“Adding other members at an early stage further complicates that.”

He urged Bangladesh to avoid framing the debate around predetermined conclusions.

“My one critique of some of the commentaries that I've read so far is that they are arguing a position and they cherry-pick the evidence that supports their position,” Danilowicz said.

“If you're in favor of Bangladesh joining, you write an article about all of the great reasons why Bangladesh should join. If you don't think Bangladesh should join, you write an article saying all of the risks.”

“In order for the country of Bangladesh to make a decision, it has to weigh pros and cons.”

Danilowicz said the debate also exposed a broader weakness in Bangladesh's national security policymaking and argued for a more formal mechanism bringing together different arms of government.

“This also shows the importance of Bangladesh developing a more robust national security decision-making structure,” he said.

“It doesn't have to emulate the United States or any other country, whether there's a National Security Advisor, whether there's a National Security Council.”

“But as far as I know, there's no current mechanism whereby the input of all the different ministries and all the different stakeholders come in and make recommendations to the head of government to make informed decisions,” he said.

“This is what I think is going to increasingly be needed in an increasingly complicated world.”

--