By Qamar Bashir
In March 2025, a bold and controversial bill titled the “Pakistan Democracy Act” was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressmen Joe Wilson (Republican-South Carolina) and Jimmy Panetta (Democrat-California).
The bill calls for targeted sanctions against individuals in Pakistan, particularly within the military and judiciary, accused of manipulating the 2024 elections and repressing democratic institutions, including the imprisonment of former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
One of the most prominent figures named in the bill is General Asim Munir, the
Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan, who is alleged to have played a key role in
orchestrating the political crackdown. Institutions such as the Pakistan Army,
the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and elements within the Election
Commission of Pakistan are also indirectly implicated for facilitating or turning
a blind eye to anti-democratic practices.
This move, though rooted in a commitment to democratic values, opens a
Pandora’s box of questions about international law, bilateral relations, historical
precedent, and strategic fallout.
According to the official bill, the key provisions include requiring the U.S.
President to submit a report within 180 days of enactment identifying
individuals in Pakistan responsible for undermining the democratic process,
unjust detainment of political opponents, and restriction of freedoms. It
authorizes targeted sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act, such as asset
freezes and visa bans, restricts property transactions in the U.S., and denies
entry to the identified individuals. Additionally, it proposes suspension of U.S.
security or economic aid unless democratic norms are restored and encourages
increased funding for democratic movements and independent journalism in
Pakistan.
If the bill is passed by Congress in its current form, the President could sign the
bill, making it law but still maintaining flexibility in enforcing its sanctions,
especially regarding identifying targeted individuals and the scope of measures
applied. Alternatively, the President might veto the bill, sending it back to
Congress with stated objections; Congress would then need a challenging two-
thirds majority in both chambers to override this veto.
Each presidential choice carries significant diplomatic and domestic
consequences: signing signals firm democratic accountability but risks
diplomatic conflict with Pakistan; vetoing demonstrates strategic caution but
may attract domestic criticism for perceived inaction.
If passed, it could result in travel restrictions and asset freezes for Pakistani
officials, including General Asim Munir and other unnamed military,
intelligence, and judicial actors. This could strain U.S.-Pakistan diplomatic and
military cooperation and lead to reciprocal measures from Pakistan.
If Pakistan's parliament responds by introducing a counter-bill imposing
sanctions on U.S. government officials and companies operating within its
territory, it would signify a substantial escalation in bilateral tensions. Such
retaliatory sanctions might involve visa restrictions, asset freezes, operational
limitations, or expulsion of American NGOs and businesses, severely straining
the economic and diplomatic relationship.
In turn, should the U.S. government escalate further by imposing additional
tariffs or restrictive economic measures on Pakistani imports, the consequences
would be severe and multidimensional.
Economically, if the U.S. imposes additional tariffs or sanctions under the
Pakistan Democracy Act, Pakistan could face significant reductions in exports,
diminished foreign exchange earnings, inflationary pressures, and slower
economic growth, adversely impacting employment and overall public welfare.
Industries particularly vulnerable include textiles, apparel, surgical instruments,
and agriculture, which represent a substantial share of Pakistan’s exports to the
U.S. Such economic distress could lead to deepening financial instability,
further escalating inflation and intensifying domestic political unrest.
It may lead to the U.S. withdrawing support for Pakistan's financing through the
IMF, World Bank, or other international institutions, the consequences for
Pakistan would be severe. Such a scenario could severely restrict Pakistan's
ability to secure essential financial assistance, as the U.S. holds substantial
influence over these international financial institutions. Without IMF or World
Bank backing, Pakistan could face immediate financial instability, including
rapid currency devaluation, depletion of foreign reserves, and difficulties in
servicing external debt.
Should U.S. allies join sanctions, the cumulative impact on Pakistan would be
considerably more severe. Economically, coordinated sanctions or restrictions
could sharply reduce Pakistan's access to international markets, financial
services, and foreign investment, amplifying economic instability and further
deteriorating currency value.
If diplomatic tensions escalate to the point of severely impacting military
cooperation between Pakistan and the United States, Pakistan's armed
forces—including the Army, Air Force, and Navy—could face significant
operational and strategic challenges. The Pakistani military relies heavily on
American technology, training, spare parts, and logistical support, particularly
in its Air Force, which operates a fleet largely composed of American-built F-16
fighter jets.
Without continuous technical support, spare parts, or maintenance assistance,
the readiness and effectiveness of these aircraft would be severely
compromised. Similarly, the Pakistani Army's capabilities in areas like
surveillance, counterterrorism, and armored warfare could decline, given its
reliance on U.S.-supplied equipment and joint training programs.
The Navy would also experience reduced operational effectiveness, as maritime
surveillance, coastal defense systems, and equipment upgrades often depend
upon U.S. technical cooperation and support. Overall, the deterioration in
military relations could impair Pakistan's defense readiness, hinder
counterterrorism operations, and reduce strategic deterrence capabilities.
There is precedent for such actions. The U.S. imposed the Magnitsky Act in
2012 on Russia for human rights abuses, leading to strained relations. In 2020,
the U.S. passed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act against China, resulting in
retaliatory sanctions and a deepened diplomatic rift. Sanctions were also
imposed on Saudi officials post-Khashoggi, though the Crown Prince was
spared for strategic reasons. After Myanmar's 2021 coup, the U.S. froze assets
and sanctioned military leaders, though the regime remained in control.
Given the deep strategic alignment between the United States and the Pakistani
military—particularly the reliance on Pakistan's armed forces as a crucial
regional asset for counterterrorism operations, intelligence sharing, and
diplomatic engagement with Afghanistan—the probability that the U.S.
President would ultimately sign the Pakistan Democracy Act into law appears
relatively low.
Washington recognizes that destabilizing Pakistan, especially considering the
sensitive nature of its nuclear arsenal and recent cooperative actions, such as the
handing over of key terrorists to U.S. authorities, poses substantial security risks
to both regional and global stability.
Consequently, despite congressional momentum and symbolic pressure for
democratic reforms, pragmatic security considerations, entrenched military ties,
and concerns about inadvertently fueling regional extremism and nuclear
insecurity suggest that the President will likely exercise diplomatic caution and
restraint, favoring alternative avenues for encouraging democratic
accountability without rupturing vital strategic partnerships.
About Writer: Press Secretary to the President (Rtd).
Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France.
Former MD, SRBC.
Macomb, Detroit, Michigan.
