How France, US and China treat Pakistan?

Listen to article

Geopolitics knows neither justice nor morality. Nor does it distinguish between race and religion. The overriding driver of this approach is "national or bloc interests". Until the unfolding of — and hitherto continuing — Israeli response to Hamas in October 2023 and its brazen attacks on Iran in June, a veneer of rule of law, democracy and human rights disguised the cold-blooded discriminatory geopolitics.

And President Donald Trump has ripped that façade down, unstitching a post-1945 order that prided itself as liberal and morally distinct from the orders that rule Russia or China. Anything linked to the latter is often projected as evil, motivated and economic expansionism, as far as the demonisation of China is concerned. And every US-led move — invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Iran and mutilation of Palestinians by Israel — is kosher with a justification.

Let us scrutinise this self-serving behaviour of some lead anchors of the brute geopolitics — the US, France, UK and Germany — vis-à-vis Pakistan and China. And how in contrast has China conducted its relations with a nuclear-armed Islamic nation, Pakistan? I feel tempted to draw a few comparisons — as a means of catharsis in an increasingly volatile world, one that is overshadowed by sheer self-interest.

Without going into the history of sanctions that the US kept slapping on Pakistan, here are some small, glaring instances of the discrimination that Pakistan faces; it is not allowed to load US F-16 fighter jets with Chinese weapons, not even for training purposes. Pakistan "must not" produce missiles beyond a 2,400 km range, probably to preclude any direct threat to Israel.

Experts and officials familiar with Track 11-level engagements recall that US interlocutors often inform them, both formally and informally, what constitutes red lines for the United States. One is that the US support for Israel and its protection is non-negotiable; and two, Pakistan cannot enhance the range of any of its missiles beyond 2,400 km.

On the other hand, the US showed little reservation on the range of the Indian long-range Agni missile, which has grown to nearly 10,000 km. Deep high-tech defence cooperation, too, looks like an exclusive favour to India. Pakistan, on the contrary, is occasionally offered crumbs i.e. upgraded F-16s, a decades-old technology.

Apparently also under US pressure, China too has thus far refused to discuss potential sale of nuclear submarines to Pakistan. Probably China is not ready to risk what may be red line for the US.

The French conduct also offers a good glimpse into their inequitable conduct with Pakistan.

During the 2001-02 Indo-Pak crisis, the French refused to return the Mistral missiles, which had been sent for necessary repairs. In a brazen India-appeasement move, they even offered to pay the cost of these systems instead of returning them. Consequently, delivery of other missiles and parts has also been delayed for another year or so.

Also, back in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the US, the French government — presumably under Indian pressure — refused to let an Agosta 90 B submarine sail off, though it was ready to sail and had already been officially handed over to the Pakistan Navy crew. Legally, the French could not stop the sailing.

Recently, the French also raised very serious objections to the test-firing of the underwater delivery system from Pakistan's French-made submarine.

In another instance, German defence ministry declined — presumably under intense US and Indian pressure — to clear the sale of new Chinese submarines to Pakistan Navy because they are fitted with American MTU engines which are barred for Pakistan.

In a nutshell, the US does not allow rest of its allies to sell sensitive military technology to Pakistan, meaning thereby the US does not view Pakistan as a friendly country.

In contrast, China has placed fewer or no restrictions whatsoever on war technologies. They also share most of the codes of technologies that the Pakistan Air Force or Navy are using.

This represents a sharp contrast to the Western suppliers. In the words of General David A Deptula, a United States Air Force (USAF) combat veteran (Interview with The Wire), "Source code is the new sovereign edge in fighter jet diplomacy — the US and France guard their intellectual property to protect integration security and geopolitical leverage."

Another telling example of the Western bias, as perceived by both China and Pakistan, occurred at the Paris Air Show in June 2025. The Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group was restricted to displaying only models of its J-10, J-20 and J-35 jets, barred from showcasing operational aircraft — a slight that Pakistani participants attributed to Western prejudice against Chinese military technology. Such incidents reinforce the Sino-Pakistani narrative of a US-led West that seeks to contain both nations.

India, in that context, serves as the USA's long arm in Asia for the larger anti-Russia and anti-China war — a campaign that relies not only on bullying but also conventional means of coercive diplomacy such as sanctions and non-conventional regimes involving non-state actors.

Tailpiece: One big question against the backdrop of growing whispers on an impending formal contact with Israel that crosses the mind — would the recognition of Israel neutralise or mitigate the geopolitical bias that Pakistan has faced so far? How can Israel's recognition end the Western discriminatory behaviour and the Indian animosity towards Pakistan?

Also, Pakistan is often branded as a pariah and duplicitous nation, even though, as evidenced in the case of Israel, the US and India other nations are not less duplicitous either.

Would it fend off threats to Pakistan's nuclear programme? If only Islam and the nuclear capability shaped the geopolitical approach on Pakistan, why is China then subjected to similar slurs and sanctions? It is just about subduing what the West views as an existential threat to it.