0
PAKISTAN and the United States have been engaged in discussions over Washington’s renewed concerns regarding Islamabad’s development of long-range missiles for at least two years.
But, with no resolution in sight, the matter has now escalated, leading the US to impose sanctions on Pakistan’s state-owned National Development Complex (NDC) and its suppliers and speculate about its capability to strike as far as the US, officials told Dawn in background discussions.
Sanctions on Pakistan’s strategic programme are not unprecedented, but US Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer’s assertion that Pakistan’s long-range missile programme is “fundamentally focused on us” and is seen as an “emerging threat” came as a surprise to many. Finer made these remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace a day after the sanctions targeting NDC and three of its suppliers were announced.
American concerns about Pakistan’s long-range missile capabilities date back to 2015, when the Shaheen-III missile was first tested. However, US pressure has intensified since October 2023 when it sanctioned three Chinese companies — General Technology Limited, Beijing Luo Luo Technology Development Co. Ltd, and Changzhou Utek Composite Company Ltd — for supplying materials allegedly used in Pakistan’s missile development.
This year, the US imposed three additional rounds of sanctions. In April, the Belarus-based Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant and three Chinese firms — Tianjin Creative Source International Trade Co. Ltd, Xi’an Longde Technology Development Co. Ltd, and Granpect Co. Ltd — were sanctioned, with NDC directly named as the recipient.
The September round targeted four Chinese companies, including Beijing Research Institute of Automation for Machine Building Industry and Hubei Huachangda Intelligent Equipment Company, along with a Pakistani firm, Innovative Equipment, and a Chinese individual.
Capability, target
The US has justified these sanctions by claiming they targeted the acquisition of equipment used for testing large-diameter rocket motors. The motors, with diameters larger than the 1.4m and 1.7m used in the Shaheen-III and Ababeel missiles, could potentially support longer-range ballistic missiles. However, such motors are not exclusive to range increase; they can also serve space programmes or enhance existing missile technology.
Washington’s assumption that Pakistan is pursuing long-range missiles to target the US mainland was firmly rejected by Islamabad during bilateral discussions preceding Finer’s public remarks, a diplomat disclosed.
“We have consistently conveyed to American officials that Pakistan neither intends nor has any interest in posing a threat to the United States. There is no conflict or hostility between our two countries. Our nuclear programme is solely aimed at deterring India, and this remains the central focus of our nuclear doctrine,” said Amb (retd) Zamir Akram, an expert in arms control and disarmament diplomacy.
Dr Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s former envoy to the UN, US, and UK, echoed this sentiment, stating, “The assertion by a US official that Pakistan’s long-range missiles pose a threat to the US is disingenuous, as the American administration is well aware that Pakistan’s missile capability is only India-focused.”
However, speaking to Geo News, the seasoned diplomat said that recent sanctions would not impact or slow down the country’s ballistic missile programme.
“One thing we need to keep in mind is that these kinds of sanctions don’t impact the health of Pakistan; Pakistan’s nuclear policy, or missile policy, can not slow down or stop because of these sanctions.
“History has told us that the US has been imposing restrictions ever since Pakistan began its nuclear programme. Their attempts were to shut down Pakistan’s nuclear programme or to completely weaken it so that Pakistan wouldn’t develop missiles. Their policy regarding has been completely unsuccessful,” she said.
The former ambassador also emphasised that the US policy towards Pakistan was “discriminatory” since it had never applied sanctions to India, whose missile programme was more advanced than Pakistan’s.
Missing reciprocal assurances
Experts suggest that Pakistan is compelled to keep its missile development options open due to India’s evolving missile capabilities, much of which is advancing with Western support.
Pakistani officials had, in their bilateral engagements, offered assurances to Washington that their missile programme should not be perceived as a threat. In return, Islamabad sought reciprocal assurances that the US would not assist India in enhancing its missile capabilities. However, Washington showed reluctance to offer such bilateral guarantees.
Beyond intentions, experts argue that Pakistan developing the capability to target the US is unlikely given its financial constraints and the vast military asymmetry between the two countries, which itself acts as a significant deterrent.
The timing of the Biden administration’s increased pressure ahead of the US presidential transition is noteworthy. Analysts believe it forces the incoming Trump administration to confront the issue, potentially leading to further bilateral tensions.
“The issue does inject strains in Pakistan-US ties, but the relationship has weathered such challenges in the past and will continue to do so in the future,” Amb Lodhi maintained.
Published in Dawn, December 21st, 2024
