The United States has recently imposed additional sanctions on four Pakistani entities linked to the country’s ballistic missile program, a move that has stirred significant controversy and drawn responses from Pakistan’s leadership. These sanctions, announced under Executive Order (E.O.) 13382, aim to curb the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile technology. The entities in question are alleged to have played a role in advancing Pakistan’s missile capabilities, a program that the U.S. sees as potentially destabilizing to the region and global security.
The U.S. sanctions, which target both individuals and organizations, are part of Washington’s broader strategy to prevent the proliferation of missile and nuclear technology. The U.S. has long maintained that the spread of ballistic missile systems, particularly those capable of carrying nuclear warheads, poses a significant threat to international peace and security. However, Pakistan has strongly objected to the sanctions, framing them as unjust and biased. In response, the Pakistani government has reiterated that its ballistic missile program is a sovereign right, vital for the nation’s defense, and that it is fully compliant with international non-proliferation norms.
Pakistan’s defense officials and diplomats have made it clear that the country’s missile program is defensive in nature, designed to safeguard its territorial integrity against perceived threats, particularly from neighboring India. They assert that the program does not contribute to the proliferation of dangerous technologies and that Pakistan is committed to regional stability and global peace. The country’s leaders have emphasized that any development in missile technology is meant to address security challenges and not to escalate tensions. As such, Pakistan has consistently rejected the U.S. claims of non-compliance, describing the sanctions as unjustified and discriminatory.
The Pakistani government has also argued that the entities targeted by the U.S. sanctions operate within the country’s legal frameworks and that their actions do not violate international norms. From Islamabad’s perspective, the missile program reflects Pakistan’s right to self-defense, particularly in the context of ongoing regional challenges. The U.S. imposition of sanctions, they argue, undermines Pakistan’s sovereignty and unnecessarily escalates military tensions.
In the broader geopolitical context, Pakistan’s stance on the issue highlights a concern with the perceived bias in U.S. foreign policy. Islamabad has long pointed to what it views as double standards in how different nations are treated under non-proliferation regimes. For instance, Pakistan has argued that despite India’s large-scale missile and nuclear weapons buildup, the U.S. has been more lenient in its approach toward India. Pakistan sees this disparity in treatment as a sign that Washington’s actions are more politically motivated than rooted in a genuine concern for non-proliferation or global security.
The claim of double standards becomes particularly pronounced when considering India’s history of diversions of peaceful nuclear technology, which have raised alarms about the country’s nuclear capabilities. Despite these concerns, the U.S. has continued to engage with India through nuclear cooperation agreements, including the landmark U.S.-India civil nuclear deal signed in 2008. For Pakistan, the continuation of these strategic partnerships raises questions about the consistency of U.S. non-proliferation policy. Does this selective application of sanctions undermine the credibility of the non-proliferation regime, especially when it focuses almost exclusively on Pakistan while allowing other countries, particularly India, to build up their military capabilities without facing the same level of scrutiny?
Pakistan has also pointed out that the U.S. sanctions are more likely to exacerbate, rather than mitigate, regional instability. Pakistan’s defense capabilities, including its missile program, are considered by many as a critical element of the country’s national security. These capabilities serve not only as a deterrent against potential aggression but also as a means of balancing the military asymmetry in the region, particularly with India’s growing conventional and nuclear capabilities. Pakistan has repeatedly called for dialogue and transparency in addressing concerns about its missile program, emphasizing that engagement, rather than punitive measures, is the way forward for ensuring long-term stability in South Asia.
At the heart of Pakistan’s criticism is the belief that the U.S. sanctions unfairly target private entities and organizations based on what it considers unsubstantiated claims. This, Pakistan argues, represents a form of discrimination that undermines trust between the nations involved and impedes the possibility of constructive dialogue. The sanctions, Pakistan contends, are not grounded in objective evidence or a fair assessment of its security needs. Instead, they reflect a political agenda aimed at influencing the regional balance of power, potentially at the expense of strategic stability.
Moreover, the U.S. actions have raised a broader question about the future of regional stability and whether Washington is still committed to fostering peace in South Asia. If the U.S. continues to single out Pakistan while ignoring similar issues with India, some analysts argue, it may be signaling that the pursuit of a balanced, inclusive approach to regional security is no longer a priority for Washington. The imposition of sanctions on Pakistan, without addressing the growing concerns related to India’s missile and nuclear programs, could be interpreted as a tacit acceptance of military asymmetry in the region. This might further deepen tensions and make the pursuit of peace more difficult, ultimately undermining the stability of South Asia.
