The United States’ decision on Dec 18, 2024, to impose sanctions on entities linked to Pakistan’s ballistic missile program has sparked widespread debate over its implications for regional stability, international norms, and bilateral relations. These measures, implemented under Executive Order (E.O.) 13382, target four entities accused of facilitating Pakistan’s missile development. The National Development Complex (NDC), Affiliates International, Akhtar and Sons Private Limited, and Rockside Enterprise are alleged to have supported the proliferation of missile-related technology.
While the U.S. frames these sanctions as necessary to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the decision raises significant concerns about its broader impact.
Pakistan has long maintained that its missile program is a sovereign right essential for its national defense. This perspective is rooted in South Asia’s precarious security dynamics, where a credible deterrence capability is deemed critical for maintaining strategic balance. The NDC, central to Pakistan’s missile development, is responsible for the SHAHEEN-series ballistic missiles, a vital component of its defense infrastructure.
Islamabad has repeatedly emphasized that its missile program adheres to international norms and is not intended for proliferation. Officials stress that these developments are defensive in nature and operate under strict legal frameworks to ensure compliance with global standards.
The imposition of sanctions, however, is seen by many in Pakistan as a discriminatory and counterproductive measure, targeting private entities such as Affiliates International and Akhtar and Sons Private Limited without substantive evidence undermines trust and appears to reflect a double standard in U.S. policy.
For instance, while Pakistan faces punitive measures, no comparable action has been taken against India, despite its significant nuclear and missile build up and documented cases of technology diversion. This disparity highlights an apparent selective approach that could inadvertently destabilize the region by encouraging an arms race.
Such actions have broader implications for regional security. South Asia’s strategic environment is characterized by a longstanding rivalry between Pakistan and India, with both nations striving to maintain a credible deterrence posture. By imposing unilateral sanctions on Pakistan’s missile program, the U.S. risks exacerbating this imbalance and emboldening India’s military ambitions. This could lead to a security dilemma, where perceived threats drive both countries to escalate their defense capabilities, undermining the objectives of non-proliferation.
Moreover, the perception of U.S. bias erodes its credibility as a neutral actor in South Asia. Pakistan’s strategic capabilities are viewed domestically as a critical trust bestowed by its people to safeguard sovereignty and ensure peace. Sanctioning these capabilities based on unsubstantiated claims alienates Pakistan and diminishes the prospects for constructive engagement. Such measures could also strain U.S.-Pakistan relations, which have historically been vital for addressing regional challenges, including counter-terrorism and economic development.
The impact of these sanctions extends beyond regional dynamics to global non-proliferation regimes. By selectively targeting Pakistan’s missile program while ignoring similar activities in other countries, the U.S. undermines the credibility of international frameworks aimed at curbing WMD proliferation. Licensing and technology-sharing policies that favor one state over another create inconsistencies, weakening the legitimacy of these regimes. This approach risks incentivizing states to adopt unilateral defense strategies, further complicating global security.
From Pakistan’s standpoint, these sanctions fail to consider its legitimate security concerns and the broader context of its strategic requirements. The sanctioned entities, including the NDC, operate within Pakistan’s legal and regulatory frameworks and have consistently emphasized their compliance with international norms. Pakistan has also demonstrated a willingness to engage in dialogue and promote transparency to address proliferation concerns. However, the punitive nature of these sanctions undermines such efforts and signals a lack of interest in collaborative problem-solving.
These sanctions have potential economic impact on Pakistan. Entities like Akhtar and Sons Private Limited and Rockside Enterprise are integral to the country’s industrial ecosystem, supporting not only defense initiatives but also broader economic activities. Targeting these organizations could disrupt supply chains, hinder technological development, and exacerbate existing economic challenges. This raises questions about the proportionality and fairness of these measures, particularly in a region already grappling with socio-economic disparities.
The decision to impose sanctions also reflects broader inconsistencies in global non-proliferation policies. While the U.S. justifies these measures as essential for preventing the spread of WMDs, its approach appears selective and influenced by geopolitical considerations. For instance, the absence of action against India’s nuclear and missile developments, despite clear evidence of strategic arms expansion, undermines the integrity of non-proliferation efforts. This double standard not only weakens global norms but also challenges the moral authority of the U.S. in leading these initiatives.
Furthermore, the sanctions risk fueling anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. Public opinion often views such measures as an infringement on national sovereignty and an attempt to undermine Pakistan’s defense capabilities. This perception could have long-term repercussions for U.S.-Pakistan relations, complicating cooperation on issues such as counter-terrorism, regional stability, and economic development. Building trust and fostering mutual understanding should be prioritized over punitive actions that alienate key partners.
In addressing the proliferation of WMDs, a balanced and inclusive approach is essential. Sanctions, while a tool of coercion, should not be the sole mechanism for achieving non-proliferation objectives. Constructive engagement, based on dialogue and mutual respect, offers a more sustainable path toward addressing proliferation concerns. Collaborative efforts that involve capacity-building, technical assistance, and transparent mechanisms for monitoring and compliance can help foster trust and ensure adherence to international norms.
The U.S. must also recognize the broader geopolitical implications of its actions. In an increasingly multipolar world, unilateral measures that target specific states risk alienating allies and undermining collective security objectives. A more balanced approach that considers the security concerns of all regional stakeholders can contribute to a stable and secure South Asia. This requires acknowledging the legitimate defense needs of states like Pakistan while holding all actors accountable to the same standards.
The U.S. sanctions on Pakistan’s ballistic missile program entities raise significant questions about their effectiveness, fairness, and broader implications. While the stated objective of curbing WMD proliferation is commendable, the selective and unilateral nature of these measures undermines their legitimacy and risks exacerbating regional tensions. Pakistan’s strategic capabilities, rooted in its sovereign defense requirements, are vital for maintaining peace and stability in South Asia.