FO rejects US stance on Pakistan missiles
DAWN
The Newspaper's Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: The Foreign Office on Saturday strongly rejected the United States’ criticism of Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile programme, calling it irrational and devoid of historical context as it vowed to continue developing its missile capabilities in line with its credible minimum deterrence strategy, emphasising their necessity in the face of evolving threats from India.
“The alleged threat perception from Pakistan’s missile capabilities and delivery means, raised by the US official, are unfortunate,” said FO spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch. “These allegations are unfounded, devoid of rationality and sense of history.”
The spokesperson was commenting on US Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer’s remarks, delivered at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in which he accused Pakistan of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of striking targets beyond South Asia, including the US. “It’s hard for us to see Pakistan’s actions as anything other than an emerging threat to the United States,” he said, citing increasingly sophisticated missile technology and development of larger rocket motors.
The spokesperson reiterated that Pakistan’s strategic programme is solely designed to preserve peace and stability in South Asia. “Pakistan’s strategic capabilities are meant to defend its sovereignty. We cannot abdicate our right to develop capabilities commensurate with the need to maintain credible minimum deterrence and address evolving threats,” she added.
Allegations termed ‘unfounded, devoid of rationality and sense of history’
Ms Baloch highlighted the extensive dialogue between Pakistan and the US on this issue, noting efforts to address Washington’s concerns. “Since 2012 when the US officials started broaching the subject, different Pakistani governments, leadership and officials, have endeavoured from time to time, to positively address and remove the misplaced US concerns,” she said. “Pakistan has also made it abundantly clear that our strategic programme and allied capabilities are solely meant to deter and thwart a clear and visible existential threat from our neighbourhood and should not be perceived as a threat to any other country,” she said, referring to the dialogue between the two countries on the issue in recent years.
She strongly criticised attempts to question Pakistan’s intent, warning that any intrusion into its strategic programme was neither acceptable nor possible. “There is unshakeable resolve and complete consensus on this aspect across the entire political and social spectrum of the country.”
The spokesperson lamented that Pakistan was being unfairly bracketed with adversarial nations. “It is regrettable that the US official alluded to bracketing Pakistan with those who are perceived to be in an adversarial relationship with the US,” she said, in a veiled reference to comparisons with Russia, China, and North Korea. “Any irrational assumption of a hostile intent from Pakistan by any other country including the US is perplexing as well as illogical.”
Ms Baloch also underscored the longstanding cooperative relationship between Pakistan and the US, cautioning that recent allegations could damage bilateral ties. “Since 1954, Pakistan and the US have enjoyed a positive and broad-ranging relationship.
The recent spate of US allegations towards a major non-Nato ally would be unhelpful for the overall relationship, especially in the absence of any evidence in this regard,“ she said.
“Pakistan has never had any ill-intention towards the US in any form or manner, and this fundamental reality has not changed,” she asserted The FO spokesperson pointed to the sacrifices Pakistan has made for the bilateral relationship, particularly in counterterrorism efforts and addressing regional instability. “On the contrary, Pakistan has made monumental sacrifices for this relationship and continues to suffer hugely in sustaining the onslaught of the aftermath of US policies in the region,” she explained.
At India’s behest
Pakistan expressed concerns that the criticism was influenced by India’s interests, further destabilising regional security.
“While ignoring and shielding the manifestations of a much more potent missile capability in our eastern neighbourhood, concerns on Pakistani capabilities are being raised seemingly at the behest of others to further accentuate the already fragile strategic stability in the region,” the spokesperson said.
The Biden administration has implemented four rounds of sanctions since October 2023 targeting entities linked to Pakistan’s missile programme, including the state-run National Development Complex. The FO decried these actions as unjustified and detrimental to regional peace.
Pakistan reaffirmed its commitment to constructive engagement with the US on security and stability issues. “We have a long history of cooperation and wish to build on this strong legacy,” she maintained.
Published in Dawn, December 22nd, 2024
Strange claim
The Newspaper's Staff Reporter
December 22, 2024
ISLAMABAD: The Foreign Office on Saturday strongly rejected the United States’ criticism of Pakistan’s long-range ballistic missile programme, calling it irrational and devoid of historical context as it vowed to continue developing its missile capabilities in line with its credible minimum deterrence strategy, emphasising their necessity in the face of evolving threats from India.
“The alleged threat perception from Pakistan’s missile capabilities and delivery means, raised by the US official, are unfortunate,” said FO spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch. “These allegations are unfounded, devoid of rationality and sense of history.”
The spokesperson was commenting on US Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer’s remarks, delivered at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in which he accused Pakistan of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of striking targets beyond South Asia, including the US. “It’s hard for us to see Pakistan’s actions as anything other than an emerging threat to the United States,” he said, citing increasingly sophisticated missile technology and development of larger rocket motors.
The spokesperson reiterated that Pakistan’s strategic programme is solely designed to preserve peace and stability in South Asia. “Pakistan’s strategic capabilities are meant to defend its sovereignty. We cannot abdicate our right to develop capabilities commensurate with the need to maintain credible minimum deterrence and address evolving threats,” she added.
Allegations termed ‘unfounded, devoid of rationality and sense of history’
Ms Baloch highlighted the extensive dialogue between Pakistan and the US on this issue, noting efforts to address Washington’s concerns. “Since 2012 when the US officials started broaching the subject, different Pakistani governments, leadership and officials, have endeavoured from time to time, to positively address and remove the misplaced US concerns,” she said. “Pakistan has also made it abundantly clear that our strategic programme and allied capabilities are solely meant to deter and thwart a clear and visible existential threat from our neighbourhood and should not be perceived as a threat to any other country,” she said, referring to the dialogue between the two countries on the issue in recent years.
She strongly criticised attempts to question Pakistan’s intent, warning that any intrusion into its strategic programme was neither acceptable nor possible. “There is unshakeable resolve and complete consensus on this aspect across the entire political and social spectrum of the country.”
The spokesperson lamented that Pakistan was being unfairly bracketed with adversarial nations. “It is regrettable that the US official alluded to bracketing Pakistan with those who are perceived to be in an adversarial relationship with the US,” she said, in a veiled reference to comparisons with Russia, China, and North Korea. “Any irrational assumption of a hostile intent from Pakistan by any other country including the US is perplexing as well as illogical.”
Ms Baloch also underscored the longstanding cooperative relationship between Pakistan and the US, cautioning that recent allegations could damage bilateral ties. “Since 1954, Pakistan and the US have enjoyed a positive and broad-ranging relationship.
The recent spate of US allegations towards a major non-Nato ally would be unhelpful for the overall relationship, especially in the absence of any evidence in this regard,“ she said.
“Pakistan has never had any ill-intention towards the US in any form or manner, and this fundamental reality has not changed,” she asserted The FO spokesperson pointed to the sacrifices Pakistan has made for the bilateral relationship, particularly in counterterrorism efforts and addressing regional instability. “On the contrary, Pakistan has made monumental sacrifices for this relationship and continues to suffer hugely in sustaining the onslaught of the aftermath of US policies in the region,” she explained.
At India’s behest
Pakistan expressed concerns that the criticism was influenced by India’s interests, further destabilising regional security.
“While ignoring and shielding the manifestations of a much more potent missile capability in our eastern neighbourhood, concerns on Pakistani capabilities are being raised seemingly at the behest of others to further accentuate the already fragile strategic stability in the region,” the spokesperson said.
The Biden administration has implemented four rounds of sanctions since October 2023 targeting entities linked to Pakistan’s missile programme, including the state-run National Development Complex. The FO decried these actions as unjustified and detrimental to regional peace.
Pakistan reaffirmed its commitment to constructive engagement with the US on security and stability issues. “We have a long history of cooperation and wish to build on this strong legacy,” she maintained.
Published in Dawn, December 22nd, 2024
Strange claim
DAWN
December 21, 2024
THOUGH Pakistan-US relations have rarely been straightforward, a sensational claim by an American official, and US sanctions targeted at Pakistani public and private entities, have thrown up several questions about the relationship’s future.
Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, US Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer claimed that Pakistan’s ballistic missile technology posed an “emerging threat to the United States” and that one day Pakistani projectiles could strike targets in America. The controversial comments came after the US had sanctioned the National Development Complex, responsible for the country’s missile programme, as well as three Karachi-based firms. The Foreign Office termed the sanctions “discriminatory” and said such moves had “dangerous implications”.
No responsible Pakistani official has ever threatened to lob missiles at the US. Moreover, there have been no credible reports, or even suggestions, that Pakistan has built or tested such long-range projectiles capable of hitting US shores. Besides, allies do not sanction allies, and such strong allegations are not made public against friendly states. It is also strange why an official of a lame-duck administration would make such sensitive claims in the midst of a political transition.
Some analysts have said it is possible that Mr Finer was singing from the Indian hymn sheet; after all, the US has transferred advanced weapons technology to New Delhi, yet it feels ‘threatened’ by Pakistan’s missiles. Instead of making such outlandish remarks at a public forum, the Americans should have used discreet diplomatic channels to communicate their concerns.
The aforementioned developments do not inspire confidence about the future of Pakistan-US ties. As team Trump arrives in the White House in a few weeks’ time, it is unlikely Pakistan will be high on its list of priorities, with the Ukraine and Middle East conflicts, as well as China, likely to top Donald Trump’s foreign policy agenda. Moreover, considering Mr Trump’s mercurial nature, and depending on who has his ear, it is difficult to predict what his attitude towards Pakistan will be. In all likelihood, Pakistan and the US will continue to be ‘frenemies’, cooperating where necessary, but differing widely on key strategic matters.
Islamabad should, of course, attempt to maintain cordial ties with Washington, but must be ready for more claims such as the one made by Mr Finer. This is especially true if the US pivots completely towards India, and continues to prop up our eastern neighbour as a counterweight to China. Though talk of maintaining neutrality is great, if the US decides to openly take on China — which the American establishment has dubbed the greatest threat to its global hegemony — Pakistan’s policymakers will have to make some very tough choices. Though Pakistan should not seek to join any geopolitical blocs, policy must be guided by national interest.
Published in Dawn, December 21st, 2024
THOUGH Pakistan-US relations have rarely been straightforward, a sensational claim by an American official, and US sanctions targeted at Pakistani public and private entities, have thrown up several questions about the relationship’s future.
Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, US Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer claimed that Pakistan’s ballistic missile technology posed an “emerging threat to the United States” and that one day Pakistani projectiles could strike targets in America. The controversial comments came after the US had sanctioned the National Development Complex, responsible for the country’s missile programme, as well as three Karachi-based firms. The Foreign Office termed the sanctions “discriminatory” and said such moves had “dangerous implications”.
No responsible Pakistani official has ever threatened to lob missiles at the US. Moreover, there have been no credible reports, or even suggestions, that Pakistan has built or tested such long-range projectiles capable of hitting US shores. Besides, allies do not sanction allies, and such strong allegations are not made public against friendly states. It is also strange why an official of a lame-duck administration would make such sensitive claims in the midst of a political transition.
Some analysts have said it is possible that Mr Finer was singing from the Indian hymn sheet; after all, the US has transferred advanced weapons technology to New Delhi, yet it feels ‘threatened’ by Pakistan’s missiles. Instead of making such outlandish remarks at a public forum, the Americans should have used discreet diplomatic channels to communicate their concerns.
The aforementioned developments do not inspire confidence about the future of Pakistan-US ties. As team Trump arrives in the White House in a few weeks’ time, it is unlikely Pakistan will be high on its list of priorities, with the Ukraine and Middle East conflicts, as well as China, likely to top Donald Trump’s foreign policy agenda. Moreover, considering Mr Trump’s mercurial nature, and depending on who has his ear, it is difficult to predict what his attitude towards Pakistan will be. In all likelihood, Pakistan and the US will continue to be ‘frenemies’, cooperating where necessary, but differing widely on key strategic matters.
Islamabad should, of course, attempt to maintain cordial ties with Washington, but must be ready for more claims such as the one made by Mr Finer. This is especially true if the US pivots completely towards India, and continues to prop up our eastern neighbour as a counterweight to China. Though talk of maintaining neutrality is great, if the US decides to openly take on China — which the American establishment has dubbed the greatest threat to its global hegemony — Pakistan’s policymakers will have to make some very tough choices. Though Pakistan should not seek to join any geopolitical blocs, policy must be guided by national interest.
Published in Dawn, December 21st, 2024
Likely cause of US missile claim
Abbas Nasir
December 22, 2024
DAWN
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
WHILE the US policy has remained focused on enabling the creation of a Greater Israel via Gaza genocide, expansion of Zionist settlements in the West Bank and the grabbing of more and more parts of Syria by the Zionist state after the fall of the Assad regime, it is floundering elsewhere as was evident from claims coming from Washington, D.C. this week.
The US, Israel and their OIC member-allies in the region have caused setbacks to another OIC member Iran and the Axis of Resistance it leads by neutralising its most potent arm, Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, by direct attacks and also by toppling the Syrian regime and severing the movement’s supply routes. Israel’s land grab in Syria also gives it commanding heights including Mount Hermon over south Lebanon to its west, the Hezbollah stronghold, as well as over Damascus towards the east.
But, in its final five weeks in office, a bizarre claim has been made by a top US security official about US concerns regarding Pakistan’s ballistic missile programme. This claim coincided with the announcement of US sanctions on a Pakistani state entity and three Pakistani Chinese firms.
In remarks made at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, US Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer said it was hard for the US to see Pakistan’s actions as anything other than an emerging threat to America.
The bizarre claim regarding Pakistan’s missile programme could well be to appease India.
“Pakistan has developed increasingly sophisticated missile technology, from long-range ballistic missile systems to equipment that would enable the testing of significantly larger rocket motors,” he said, adding: “If those trends continue, Pakistan will have the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including the United States.”
Any analyst in his right mind would pour scorn over this claim. Pakistan is nowhere in direct confrontation with the US anywhere in the world and why in the world would it wish to acquire ballistic missile capability to target the US, a superpower?
Pakistan’s entire national security doctrine is based on the Indian threat which, given the conflicts in 1948, 1965, 1971 and the Kargil flare-up, is a legitimate concern.
So, what is really behind such claims and the third or fourth set of sanctions over a short span of time (read Baqir Sajjad’s excellent situationer in yesterday’s edition of this paper for details) on Pakistan’s development of delivery systems?
My first thought was that when the US official referred to the potential capability to target the US it may have been a roundabout way of saying that perhaps Israel could come under threat. I quickly dismissed this notion. This, because Pakistan has never done anything more than offer ‘moral and diplomatic’ support to the Palestinian cause and at this point in time, it isn’t in a position to take a tougher line against the Gaza genocide in terms of support beyond diplomatic fora.
The horror of babies and children being murdered, maimed and crippled through multiple amputations in a brutal indiscriminate bombardment because Israelis believe there are no ‘innocents’ in Gaza, including children, is on the one hand, and Pakistan’s economic state on the other.
That crippling reality makes it impossible for Pakistan do anything, even if its civil and military ruling elite may have wanted to come to the Palestinians’ aid. It stays afloat on handouts from US-controlled IFIs and cash-rich US allies in the region. One false move and the tap from which the dollars drip (unlike the free flow of the past) will be turned off.
Therefore, one was forced to look elsewhere and one plausible reason came via The Friday Times’ founder and former editor Najam Sethi, who pointed to the broader canvas.
India enjoys a special status with the US as evident from the fact that it can freely import sanctioned Iranian (and even Russian) oil at much cheaper rates without drawing international (read: US) opprobrium, even as countries like Pakistan are sinking under the cost of their oil import bill but can’t look towards Iranian oil and petroleum products for the fear of incurring Washington’s wrath.
Delhi is thus pampered not only because of the size of its market — over 1.4 billion people with a middle class component of more than 400 million — but also due to its location and physical size. It is seen as a counter to Chinese power in the region. India’s membership of the so-called Quadrilateral Security dialogue alongside the US, Japan and Australia was meant to curb China’s economic and military primacy in the region.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union 33 years ago, it was expected that US imperialism would remain unchallenged in a unipolar world. Since then, China has made rapid advances as an economic and military power. This has posed a challenge to US ambitions around the globe.
The formation of the BRICs alliance is another major challenge and irritant. After the Kazan (Russia) summit of the grouping in October this year, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to disengage their troops on their disputed border. By Nov 6, the two countries had completed the process.
Apart from that improvement in China-India relations that will boost trade ties between the two, there was also talk at BRICS of setting up an alternative payment system for international deals to obviate secondary sanctions imposed on Russia, for example.
President-elect Donald Trump has already warned BRICS against the development of any alternative payment system/ currency undermining the greenback and threatened to impose 100 per cent tariffs on the nine-nation bloc many more are keen to join, if it happened.
The bizarre claim regarding Pakistan’s missile programme could well be to appease India and keep it onside to use it as a bulwark against China whether that is likely or not. India does see Islamabad’s nuclear and missile programme as a major obstacle to its domination of the region and often sounds like a cry-baby when raising this issue.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, December 22nd, 2024
WHILE the US policy has remained focused on enabling the creation of a Greater Israel via Gaza genocide, expansion of Zionist settlements in the West Bank and the grabbing of more and more parts of Syria by the Zionist state after the fall of the Assad regime, it is floundering elsewhere as was evident from claims coming from Washington, D.C. this week.
The US, Israel and their OIC member-allies in the region have caused setbacks to another OIC member Iran and the Axis of Resistance it leads by neutralising its most potent arm, Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement, by direct attacks and also by toppling the Syrian regime and severing the movement’s supply routes. Israel’s land grab in Syria also gives it commanding heights including Mount Hermon over south Lebanon to its west, the Hezbollah stronghold, as well as over Damascus towards the east.
But, in its final five weeks in office, a bizarre claim has been made by a top US security official about US concerns regarding Pakistan’s ballistic missile programme. This claim coincided with the announcement of US sanctions on a Pakistani state entity and three Pakistani Chinese firms.
In remarks made at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, US Deputy National Security Adviser Jon Finer said it was hard for the US to see Pakistan’s actions as anything other than an emerging threat to America.
The bizarre claim regarding Pakistan’s missile programme could well be to appease India.
“Pakistan has developed increasingly sophisticated missile technology, from long-range ballistic missile systems to equipment that would enable the testing of significantly larger rocket motors,” he said, adding: “If those trends continue, Pakistan will have the capability to strike targets well beyond South Asia, including the United States.”
Any analyst in his right mind would pour scorn over this claim. Pakistan is nowhere in direct confrontation with the US anywhere in the world and why in the world would it wish to acquire ballistic missile capability to target the US, a superpower?
Pakistan’s entire national security doctrine is based on the Indian threat which, given the conflicts in 1948, 1965, 1971 and the Kargil flare-up, is a legitimate concern.
So, what is really behind such claims and the third or fourth set of sanctions over a short span of time (read Baqir Sajjad’s excellent situationer in yesterday’s edition of this paper for details) on Pakistan’s development of delivery systems?
My first thought was that when the US official referred to the potential capability to target the US it may have been a roundabout way of saying that perhaps Israel could come under threat. I quickly dismissed this notion. This, because Pakistan has never done anything more than offer ‘moral and diplomatic’ support to the Palestinian cause and at this point in time, it isn’t in a position to take a tougher line against the Gaza genocide in terms of support beyond diplomatic fora.
The horror of babies and children being murdered, maimed and crippled through multiple amputations in a brutal indiscriminate bombardment because Israelis believe there are no ‘innocents’ in Gaza, including children, is on the one hand, and Pakistan’s economic state on the other.
That crippling reality makes it impossible for Pakistan do anything, even if its civil and military ruling elite may have wanted to come to the Palestinians’ aid. It stays afloat on handouts from US-controlled IFIs and cash-rich US allies in the region. One false move and the tap from which the dollars drip (unlike the free flow of the past) will be turned off.
Therefore, one was forced to look elsewhere and one plausible reason came via The Friday Times’ founder and former editor Najam Sethi, who pointed to the broader canvas.
India enjoys a special status with the US as evident from the fact that it can freely import sanctioned Iranian (and even Russian) oil at much cheaper rates without drawing international (read: US) opprobrium, even as countries like Pakistan are sinking under the cost of their oil import bill but can’t look towards Iranian oil and petroleum products for the fear of incurring Washington’s wrath.
Delhi is thus pampered not only because of the size of its market — over 1.4 billion people with a middle class component of more than 400 million — but also due to its location and physical size. It is seen as a counter to Chinese power in the region. India’s membership of the so-called Quadrilateral Security dialogue alongside the US, Japan and Australia was meant to curb China’s economic and military primacy in the region.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union 33 years ago, it was expected that US imperialism would remain unchallenged in a unipolar world. Since then, China has made rapid advances as an economic and military power. This has posed a challenge to US ambitions around the globe.
The formation of the BRICs alliance is another major challenge and irritant. After the Kazan (Russia) summit of the grouping in October this year, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to disengage their troops on their disputed border. By Nov 6, the two countries had completed the process.
Apart from that improvement in China-India relations that will boost trade ties between the two, there was also talk at BRICS of setting up an alternative payment system for international deals to obviate secondary sanctions imposed on Russia, for example.
President-elect Donald Trump has already warned BRICS against the development of any alternative payment system/ currency undermining the greenback and threatened to impose 100 per cent tariffs on the nine-nation bloc many more are keen to join, if it happened.
The bizarre claim regarding Pakistan’s missile programme could well be to appease India and keep it onside to use it as a bulwark against China whether that is likely or not. India does see Islamabad’s nuclear and missile programme as a major obstacle to its domination of the region and often sounds like a cry-baby when raising this issue.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, December 22nd, 2024
