On December 18, 2024, the United States announced additional sanctions on Pakistan’s National Development Complex (NDC) and three private entities—Affiliates International, Akhtar and Sons Private Limited, and Rockside Enterprise—accusing them of contributing to Pakistan’s ballistic missile program.
According to the US Department of State, these sanctions are intended to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and their delivery systems. However, this move raises critical questions about fairness, strategy, and the broader implications for US-Pakistan relations.
The announcement is reminiscent of US policies pursued as now, punitive measures were prioritized over dialogue, creating significant strains in the bilateral relationship. The new sanctions may further damage the fragile trust between the two nations, especially with America’s selective policies towards other regional players.
Pakistan’s strategic program, including its ballistic missile development, is not a standalone ambition but a response to the region’s volatile security dynamics. With an increasingly militarized India—emboldened by waivers on international non-proliferation agreements and access to advanced military technology—Pakistan’s defense capabilities are critical for maintaining strategic balance in South Asia.
Pakistan has consistently reiterated its adherence to non-proliferation norms, underscoring the defensive nature of its missile program. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in its response to the recent sanctions, termed them “unfortunate and biased,” arguing that they undermine regional stability by accentuating military asymmetries.
The US, however, seems to view Pakistan’s program through a narrow lens, often overlooking India’s aggressive military modernization. This selective scrutiny risks destabilizing the region and reducing Washington’s credibility as a neutral arbiter of peace.
A recurring criticism of US policy is its inconsistent application of non-proliferation norms. While sanctions are imposed on Pakistan for its missile program, India enjoys exemptions that enable it to acquire advanced technology, despite being outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). These double standards not only fuel mistrust but also undermine the credibility of global non-proliferation regimes.
Pakistan has pointed out the lack of evidence in past listings of its private entities, suggesting that such actions are often based on suspicion rather than concrete proof. This perception of bias reinforces Islamabad’s belief that its strategic ambitions are unfairly targeted while similar activities by others are overlooked or even facilitated.
The US’s punitive approach risks driving Pakistan further into the orbit of its all-weather ally, China. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Beijing’s unwavering support for Islamabad have already deepened this alliance. Continued US hostility could accelerate this shift, reducing Washington’s influence in South Asia—a region of critical strategic importance.
Moreover, these sanctions come at a time when global challenges such as climate change, economic instability, and rising extremism demand collaborative efforts. Alienating a key regional player like Pakistan could hinder the US’s ability to address these shared challenges effectively.
To repair and strengthen US-Pakistan relations, both nations must move beyond a punitive framework. The United States needs to recognize Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns and engage in meaningful dialogue to address proliferation issues. Simultaneously, Islamabad must continue to demonstrate transparency and commitment to international norms.
History has shown that sanctions and isolation rarely yield the desired outcomes. Instead, they create resentment and push nations toward alternative alliances. For US-Pakistan relations to evolve constructively, a balanced and inclusive approach is essential.
The latest round of sanctions is a test for both nations—a test of their ability to rise above mistrust and prioritize regional and global stability. The question remains: will they seize this opportunity, or will history repeat itself in the form of strained ties and missed opportunities?
In a world increasingly defined by interdependence, cooperation, not confrontation, is the key to lasting peace and security.
