The United States has recently blacklisted more than two dozen entities – including those from Pakistan and China – over allegations that they supported ballistic missile and drone programs in Pakistan. Interestingly, the ban was announced just hours apart from the US defense secretary’s statement that his country has supplied Israel with a $1 billion Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, which is now “in place”.
Looking at both the developments side by side shows not just the extent of geopolitical control that the US has been exercising through economic sanctions but also the double standards that govern power dynamics of the world.
And it is not just about the alleged support to Pakistan’s missile systems; the list also included firms that stand accused of assisting Russia’s war effort in Ukraine and supporting Iran’s weapons programs. Naturally, the decision has sparked debates about the fairness of these sanctions, not to mention the overall consequences for international relations, particularly between the US, Pakistan, and other nations like China and Iran.
Nine Pakistani entities were added to the blacklist. Authorities say these firms were acting as front companies for previously banned organizations. But it is difficult to ignore the fact that the long-standing US concerns over Pakistan’s missile program played a role in this decision. The blacklisting also shows that Washington tends to punish countries it sees as threats, but often ignores the same problems with its allies.
Of course justifications followed the decision, the foremost being “protecting national security” and “upholding global peace”. However, they often appear hypocritical and reeking of parochialism, especially because of the US’s selective enforcement of export controls. For example, while it sanctions countries like Pakistan, it simultaneously supports other nations involved in contentious military activities, including Israel and India.
The US has provided Israel with advanced defense systems “for defense against potential Iranian missile threats”. But it chose not to mention that while these systems provide Israel with a shield, they also allow it to conduct offensive operations in the region without fear of retaliation.
Although Washington has justified the ‘sharing’ of such mechanisms with its strategic allies and the deployment of its troops in the region as ‘defensive measures’, saner minds see such steps as creating an imbalance of power, subsequently emboldening Israel to continue its aggressive stance in Lebanon, Gaza, and potentially against Iran.
In the current scenario, even if the allegations against the sanctioned companies are true, the way the US is backing Israel and at the same time condemning military programs in Pakistan and Iran exposes a contradiction that brings a bad name to its position as a fair arbiter in global conflicts.
Calling the kettle black
It is needless to say that the rationale behind US actions may seem straightforward – punish those who support adversaries – but these sanctions appear to be tools being used for advancing US interests rather than consistently upholding international law. Another point of concern is that the US insists on penalizing countries for actions it itself engages in. For example, while condemning Pakistan for its missile program, the US has an extensive military-industrial complex that supplies weapons to multiple countries, which often fuels conflicts rather than resolve them.
The same US that sanctions companies for providing drone technology to Iran, supplies Israel and other countries with similar military equipment despite global outcry that its allied ‘consumers’ are committing human rights violations on a mass level.
Although the US calls itself a defender of human rights and global stability, its actions often suggest otherwise. The notion “might is right” is not always right, and is certainly not applicable or justifiable in this specific case.