Pakistan’s missile programme threat to US?… Kamran Yousaf

The year was 1985. It was the height of the Cold War. Pakistan was a frontline state in the US-led campaign to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. But the same year Senator Larry Pressler introduced a bill in the Congress that sought to regulate aid to Pakistan. The bill was approved by Congress and later known as the Pressler Amendment. The main aim of the legislation was to ensure Pakistan did not build a nuclear bomb. Under the amendment, the US President had to annually certify to the Congress that Pakistan was not developing a nuclear programme. For 5 years, the US President continued to issue certification to the Congress. But when Soviet troops were defeated and left Afghanistan in 1989, the US also withdrew from the region.

A year later, President Bush Senior refused to certify that Pakistan was not building a bomb, leading to abrupt cutting of all security and other assistance to Pakistan. The US withheld security assistance and promised delivery of F-16 fighter jets, and that left a big scar on the Pak-US relationship. Washington’s move to sanctions Pakistan after its objective was achieved in Afghanistan left many people, including decision-makers, to wonder whether the US could be a trustworthy ally. But despite those grievances, Pakistan once again joined hands with the US after the 9/11 attacks. Pakistan again became a frontline state in the US-led campaign against terrorism. Security and civilian aid started pouring in while Pakistan’s foreign debt was also rescheduled. The US repeatedly assured Pakistan that it would not commit the mistake of the past and would stand by it even after withdrawal from Afghanistan. But developments of the past few years, particularly this year, indicate otherwise.

Last week, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on four Pakistani entities including state-owned National Defense Complex (NDC), a move aimed at targeting Pakistan’s long range missile programme. This was the third instance in a year when Washington targeted Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Previously, it listed Chinese and Belarusian companies for allegedly helping Pakistan in building the ballistic missile programme. Islamabad has all along maintained that its nuclear and missile programme is India-centric. It was because of this reason that even during closed door discussions with US officials, Pakistan wondered why Washington was after the country’s missile programme. It is often said that given Pakistan’s economic, security and political vulnerabilities, the US feared that Pakistan’s nuclear and missile assets could fall into the hands of rogue elements. However, very few would agree to that being the real reason behind the US move. A day after the State Department imposed fresh sanctions on certain Pakistani entities, a senior Biden administration official made a stunning claim. Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer claimed nuclear-armed Pakistan was developing long-range ballistic missile capabilities that eventually could allow it to strike targets well beyond South Asia. “So, candidly, it’s hard for us to see Pakistan’s actions as anything other than an emerging threat to the United States,” Finer said.

Pakistani officials termed the claim “absurd”. The current maximum range of Pakistan’s missile is 2,750 km and there is no evidence to show Pakistan is developing any missile that goes beyond India. The major US worry is Pakistan’s space programme. The US fears that Pakistan is developing a Space Launch Vehicle, which can be used both for satellite launch and for Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. Some observers think the US fears that Pakistan’s ballistic missile can be a threat to Israel. The US assertion is bizarre that even big powers at the height of their rivalry never dared use missiles against each other. So, how has the US come to the conclusion that Pakistan’s missile programme is a threat to its security given we are still a major non-NATO ally and despite ups and downs, the two countries have maintained a friendly relationship? There is much more than meets the eye!

COURTESY