Umme Haniya
Why go around in circles? The recent legislative push by Representative Rashida Tlaib to condition US military aid on the removal of General Asim Munir and the release of Imran Khan is a direct challenge to Pakistan’s sovereignty and a perilous precedent in international relations. This move, ostensibly aimed at promoting human rights, risks undermining the very fabric of diplomatic engagement and Pakistan’s constitutional autonomy.
Would these so-called activists realise that Pakistan’s leadership–military or civilian is unequivocally a national matter, determined by its constitutional procedures, not by external demands or diaspora-driven pressure campaigns. The principle of non-intervention, a cornerstone of international law enshrined in the UN Charter, prohibits coercive interference in a state’s internal affairs. Weaponising aid to dictate the tenure of a military chief or the fate of a political figure sets a dangerous precedent that undermines diplomacy and violates international norms of non-intervention. Such aid conditionality, based on personalities rather than policies, reeks of politicisation, not genuine human rights advocacy. Washington must avoid being seen as enabling political engineering abroad, a perception that has historically plagued US-Pakistan relations.
The historical trajectory of US military aid to Pakistan reveals a consistent pattern of conditionality driven by shifting US strategic interests, often fostering distrust rather than stable partnerships. Since 1948, aid levels have “waxed and waned,” peaking during periods of strategic alignment, such as the Cold War or the post-9/11 War on Terror. Substantial aid flowed during the military regimes of Ayub Khan and Zia-ul-Haq, only to be suspended in the 1990s over nuclear concerns. Even the 2009 Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, despite its aim to triple non-military aid, was riddled with controversial conditions. This cyclical pattern reinforces Pakistani scepticism, making genuine, long-term strategic cooperation on critical issues like regional stability and counter-terrorism more challenging. The current proposal, by tying aid to a specific individual, risks perpetuating this cycle, undermining the very stability the United States purports to seek in Pakistan.
Pakistan has endured an immense human and economic cost in its protracted struggle against terrorism, a challenge that continues to demand unwavering national resolve and international cooperation. From 2001 to 2018, the direct and indirect economic cost incurred by Pakistan due to incidents of terrorism amounted to a staggering US$126.79 billion. The human toll is equally devastating: between 2003 and 2018, 23,372 Pakistani civilians and 8,832 Pakistani security personnel were killed. Globally, over 940,000 people were killed by direct post-9/11 war violence across Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan between 2001 and 2023, with more than 432,000 being civilians.
Despite significant progress, including a marked improvement in its Global Terrorism Index ranking by 2017, terrorism remains an acute and resurgent threat. The Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) reported a 70% increase in terrorist attacks in 2024, totalling 521 incidents, which claimed 852 lives (a 23% rise from 2023) and injured 1,092 people. These figures underscore the ongoing nature of this existential challenge for Pakistan. The United States itself acknowledges Pakistan’s vital role in counter-terrorism and regional stability, aiming to “mitigate the threat from violent extremism and counter terrorist activities” and emphasising military-to-military cooperation on counterterrorism operations. Any policy that destabilises Pakistan’s institutions risks undermining these critical shared security objectives.
The role of diaspora lobbying in shaping US foreign policy towards Pakistan, particularly concerning the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, demands critical scrutiny. This dynamic raises serious concerns about outsourcing foreign policy to emotionally charged diaspora lobbying efforts, which undermines serious diplomacy and invites perceptions of US interference in sovereign matters. The irony is stark: PTI, which previously accused the United States of orchestrating Imran Khan’s ouster, now actively seeks US intervention through its diaspora networks. This approach risks eroding Congressional objectivity and integrity, as US lawmakers may inadvertently act as proxies for foreign factional interests. No US lawmaker should act as a proxy for factional interests abroad, especially when such narratives aim to delegitimize constitutional institutions of a key partner country. Narratives driven by partisan diaspora voices distort ground realities, risk reputational damage to US diplomacy, and undermine long-term engagement with a key regional partner.
The long-term US interest in South Asia rests on a stable, democratic, and prosperous Pakistan, capable of effectively addressing its myriad challenges, including the persistent threat of terrorism. A strong, sovereign Pakistan is not merely a regional asset but a crucial partner in global counter-terrorism efforts and nuclear security . US foreign policy must be grounded in mutual respect, strict adherence to international norms of non-intervention, and a strategic vision that transcends short-term political pressures or personality-driven conditionalities. Such an approach would build enduring trust, fostering a relationship based on shared strategic interests rather than transactional demands or the influence of partisan diaspora narratives.
The writer is a freelance columnist.
