On December 15, the US imposed additional sanctions against four entities with direct links to Pakistan’s ballistic missile program. The order freezes assets and prohibits US citizens from doing business with firms sanctioned to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems for warheads. The United States has sanctioned Pakistan’s National Development Complex and three connected entities, Affiliates International, Akhtar and Sons Private Limited, and Rockside Enterprise, to hamper its long-range ballistic missile program. According to the US, authorized Pakistani entities have been suspected of assisting in the development or procurement of ballistic missile technology in contravention of nonproliferation norms.
This move can give the impression that all US policies are pro-India because such steps will create an imbalance in South Asia, leading to many conflicts. Pakistan’s nuclear program is for defensive purposes and does not have any offensive ambition, and this development could further lead to the United States viewing India as a strategic partner. This policy tilt underscores the US hegemonic goals, as it utilizes India as a strategic partner to build a monopoly in the area and retain control over growing power dynamics.
Pakistan has been vocal in its advocacy of its ballistic missile program, arguing that it is a fundamental right that helps keep the country safe by ensuring its deterrence to any aggressive measures by India. It said it is committed to peaceful coexistence and regional stability through the diplomatic channel to allay apparent global fears. Pakistan has said that the US sanctions are biased and discriminatory and thus widen the military gap between the two countries and hamper peace in the region. The country has pointed to selective enforcement not to face the issue of similar development on its border with other states.
The US sanctions imposed on Pakistan’s ballistic missile program-related entities are likely to increase tensions in South Asia, augment India’s military dominance, and raise fears of the onset of a new arms race. Experts are saying that America is being hypocritical and not taking enough steps against India’s rapid nuclear and missile growth. Scholars such as Michael Kugelman have stated that sanctioning Pakistan and not India over its increasing missile arsenal would exacerbate regional tensions and harm US credibility.
Nuclear weapons and carriers are valuable assets for any nuclear-armed state. It deters enemies from aggression, which ensures territorial integrity and sovereignty. Pakistan argued that the United States was imposing sanctions unfoundedly but giving unwarranted benefits to the Indian side. The US has always been lenient with India on its missile program since India’s Agni missile has extended its range to 5,000 km. Still, on the other hand, the US is pressuring Pakistan not to develop Ghauri, a 1,500 km-range missile. Following India’s nuclear tests in 1998, Washington imposed economic sanctions on both countries. However, when bilateral trade hit $22 billion, US restrictions relaxed on India while keeping Pakistan under pressure.
The US’s selective enforcement of global proliferation standards created an environment of mistrust between these two South Asian nuclear powers and heightened worries about the US’s commitment to regional security.
The US made military revenue conditional on proliferation, which is becoming more problematic. Consequently, such operations are destabilizing the region. Groups trying to prevent weapons proliferation are concerned that these restricted measures undermine global arms control and inhibit collaboration for peace in the region.
It may be rational for the United States to keep all the parties of South Asia on the table in its attempts to allay proliferation concerns without destabilizing the region. Similarly, according to Dr. Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, Pakistan must engage in multilateral initiatives aimed at proliferation to protect its strategic interests and lessen external pressures. By following international laws and taking part in global meetings, Pakistan’s standing on spreading weapons might get more muscular.
Open and transparent policies will likely enhance global norms against the spread of nuclear weapons and protect US strategic interests in the region. It is important to ensure more transparency in the missile program. Also, measures of confidence-building in the region would help allay criticisms and would be taken by Pakistan as an exercise in peaceful coexistence.
Nonproliferation regimes will gain legitimacy if the global community implements them reasonably rather than selectively. Discussing them with all parties is still important to reduce regional tension and bring about ultimate peace.
