Bill in the U.S. Congress on Military Leadership Sanctions: Restoration of Democracy or Conspiracy Against Pakistan?
By: Raja Zahid Akhtar Khanzada
Supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) are celebrating the news that members from both major parties in the U.S. Congress have introduced a new bill recommending sanctions against Pakistan’s military leadership, particularly Army Chief General Asim Munir and other senior officials. This bill calls for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan and the release of political prisoners, including Imran Khan at the forefront. Furthermore, if the Pakistani government does not comply with these demands, harsh measures such as U.S. visa restrictions, economic actions, and cuts in aid may be implemented. The bill was introduced by two U.S. Congress members, Republican Wilson and Democrat Jimmy Panetta. However, if the reality is understood more deeply, the joy of PTI supporters could soon turn into disappointment and sorrow. Washington and global politics are essentially no less than a chess game, where every move hides complex intentions and interests.
The “Pakistan Democracy Act,” presented in the U.S. Congress, seemingly focuses on the protection of human rights and democracy. However, in this game of political chess, there are hidden goals behind every move. Therefore, understanding the hidden objectives and depth of this bill is crucial. Another aspect of this bill is that it seeks to capitalize on Pakistan’s internal political crisis, attempting to create a new strategy on the global stage. On one hand, it talks about imposing sanctions on Pakistan’s military leadership, while on the other hand, it demands the release of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The question now arises: Is this bill truly for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan, or is it part of a global conspiracy, possibly backed by powerful countries like Israel and India with their own interests? On the political chessboard, this is an ongoing game in which the pieces of politics, interests, and power are advancing their moves. In this way, the results of this game could also impact Pakistan’s fate.
The United States, which has always portrayed itself as the defender of democracy and human rights around the world, has a history of prioritizing its strategic interests. Whether it’s unconditional support for Israel in the Middle East or imposing dictatorships in Latin America, history bears witness to this fact. The democracy being discussed through this bill in Pakistan is, in reality, an attempt to bolster a specific political narrative. The question is whether this is truly for the benefit of Pakistan’s democracy or is it a political tactic aimed at weakening Pakistan’s military institutions and plunging the country into internal turmoil? But the real question is, why is the United States suddenly so concerned about democracy in Pakistan, especially when it has supported Pakistan’s military regimes for decades?
If we look at the history of America’s campaigns for the restoration of democracy around the world, we are faced with a complex and controversial reality. In the 1970s, when the U.S. intervened in Chile to overthrow the elected government of Salvador Allende, it was not a support for democracy but rather the forcible removal of an elected government. Then, during the Arab Spring of the 2000s, the U.S. intervened in Egypt and Libya, claiming to promote democracy, but the result was instability and civil war in both countries. In 2020, U.S. support for Juan Guaidó’s failed coup in Venezuela was another example where claims of promoting democracy were sometimes behind interests that sought to reshape the global balance of power in their favor. These events demonstrate that whenever interventions are made in the name of ‘democracy,’ the results often give rise to complex questions and contradictions. The question is, is this bill in Pakistan a continuation of this pattern? Pakistan still has a generation alive that witnessed the U.S. support for Pakistani military governments for decades. So why, all of a sudden, is the U.S. concerned about democracy in Pakistan today?
Although this bill demands the release of Imran Khan, it appears that the geopolitical interests of the U.S., Israel, and India are behind it. U.S. Congress members, through this bill, are seeking to impose harsh measures such as U.S. visa restrictions, economic actions, and cuts in aid on Pakistan. In this context, it is essential to understand who Wilson and Jimmy Panetta, the sponsors of this bill, are and what financial interests drive them. Both members of Congress are closely associated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Wilson has consistently supported Israel and has introduced several bills defending the Israeli government. He is an active advocate for pro-Israel policies and has always voted in favor of Israel in Congress. In the 2024 elections, he received over $133,000 in funding from AIPAC. Similarly, Jimmy Panetta also received $256,767 in funding from AIPAC and other pro-Israel organizations. Is it just a coincidence that these two lawmakers, who openly support Israel, have suddenly become so concerned about Pakistan’s democracy? Or is this a joint effort by Israel and India to weaken Pakistan’s military and political powers and render it powerless on the global stage? This clearly indicates that the actions of Wilson and Panetta are not merely for human rights but are driven by political and geopolitical objectives. This seems to be part of a larger global strategy to pressure Pakistan, promote the interests of Israel and India, and weaken the role of the Pakistani military. The potential role of the Indian lobby in this bill is also significant. Lobbies like the “Institute of New America” promote anti-Pakistan narratives in Washington. While the bill does not explicitly mention Indian funding, the joint interests of Israel and India in weakening Pakistan regionally could align. In this regard, experts in diplomatic affairs have expressed mixed reactions to the bill. Michael Kugelman believes that this bill could become another cause of strained relations between the U.S. and Pakistan. In recent years, Pakistan has supported action against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the U.S. has appreciated this cooperation. According to him, the introduction of this bill might be a symbolic move with little chance of being passed. However, the fact remains that the U.S. has consistently taken such steps to pressure Pakistan. Edward Lou states that U.S. pressure on Pakistan to promote democracy is part of an old strategy. Although the bill mentions human rights, it is important to highlight the clear American interests behind it. The restoration of democracy in Pakistan should not just be seen as elections and political freedom, but as part of a geopolitical scenario where the U.S. aims to protect its strategic interests.
Jennifer Hartman argues that the U.S. move to restore democracy in Pakistan could be based on several factors. It could be a reaction to the increasing U.S.-India relations and Pakistan’s growing ties with China. In fact, this move appears to be an attempt to weaken Pakistan’s military power and limit its influence on the global stage. Dan Harvey states that while this bill has been introduced by the U.S., considering the strong strategic relationship with Pakistan, it seems unlikely to be practically implemented. Pakistan is a key ally of the U.S., and its strategic interests globally align with an alliance with Pakistan. Given this, the chances of the bill passing in its entirety are low, and it may merely serve as a diplomatic pressure tactic.
The U.S. effort to promote democracy in Pakistan is part of a complex global scenario where balancing strategic interests, diplomatic relations, and the interests of global powers is essential. Although the chances of this bill being passed are slim, it sends a clear message that the U.S. expects Pakistan to take further steps in strengthening democratic processes and respecting human rights. In such a case, Pakistan must adopt a cautious strategy in its internal matters and international relations to avoid further tension in the bilateral relationship.
