Government and the military establishment as well utterly failed in bringing its choice constitutional amendment, enabling sitting Chief Justice of Pakistan to remain in office for another term and blocking ways for pro-Imran Khan judge namely Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. The government failed as it didn’t mustered support of some smaller groups having very thin but effective representation in the parliament-both Upper and Lower houses.

So far chief of his faction Maulana Fazal Ur Rahman has refused to support the proposed 26-A amendment in the Constitution of 1973. And second is nationalist Awami National Party. JUI(F) has representation of five MNA’s and two Senators whereas the ANP has a strength of three in Upper House (Senate). Besides these two parties, Mutahida Quami Movement, Baluchistan National Party and other smaller groups having certain reservations over the proposed amendment draft.

In fact, the government didn’t made public or unveiled the proposed draft, therefore, it caused some suspicious and confusion. Earlier the government claimed that through proposed 26-A, they wants to repeal some parts of 19th constitutional amendments, which has granted maximum powers to Chief Justice of Pakistan in appointment of judges. But later the proposed drafts included some parts making mandatory involvement of military establishment in appointment of judges, banning of political parties and arrests of people on the charges of anti-state activities etc. On such grounds, now after JUI(F) and ANP, certain other political parties are also opposing the proposed draft.

Almost all top judiciary judges having a soft corner towards Imran Khan

The case of Pakistan Tehrik Insaf is very different as its almost leaders are using its effective strength in both upper and lower houses to force the powerful military establishment for a deal. Almost PTI top leaders are playing role of ROBOTS and they are following dictations of their jailed leader. No doubt that almost top judiciary judges are known for having a soft corner towards Imran Khan and his party men but IK and co are still ahead with dozen of cases registered against them in different charges. Most of these cases are pertained to misuse of offices, corruption and criminals.

The JUI(F) of Maulana Fazal Ur Rahman, ANP and BNP are unanimously demanding establishment of a Constitutional court for hearing and disposing off of cases pertained to constitutional matters. Earlier the nationalists and progressive minded political parties and politicians had demanded a a Federal Court for settling issues amongst the federating units ( provinces, and between provinces and the federal government. But now when the superior courts are consuming maximum time in settling, hearing and disposing off of constitutional matters, therefore, JUI(f), ANP and others realized importance’s of a Constitutional Court.

Future of Pakistan is at stake due to alarming economic crisis and deteriorating of security situation

No doubt to mention that the matter couldn’t be settled with giving or getting back powers of judiciary. The real issue is rest with the military establishment – which eyeing on further strengthening its influence over almost civil-politico matters. Since inception of the country in 1947, the military establishment-considered true and lawful legacy of British Colonial system in the region (Asia) didn’t misused any chance of making crippled and destablised the civil-politico system in Pakistan. Most recent move was patronization of PTI against two top political parties like PPP and PML(n) in Center and Nationalist ANP in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Destablisation of nationalist ANP in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was and is aimed at continuation of its efforts for having influence over internal and external policies of Afghanistan. Such aims are still workable but the aims of destablisation of PML(N) and PPP at central level utterly failed and now the PTI’s artificial popularity become a serious threat to no other than powerful military establishment.

Amidst  alarming economic and final crises and deteriorating security situation, the growing politico-judicial crises is putting future of the country at stake. Internally, the highly educated but jobless  youngsters are lacking confidence in better future of the country whereas externally almost members of the international community are unhappy due to ‘patronisation of hard line religious groups and factions.’ At this crucial stage, maximum responsibility rests with no other than military establishment to review its own acts and actions and let the political leadership to put house in order. Only political leadership is capable of pulling the country out of these crises like of 1969 and 1972.

Recent U.S. sanctions targeting Chinese missile technology suppliers are seen as a potential risk to the longstanding defense ties between China and Pakistan.

The U.S. State Department has imposed sanctions on the Beijing Machinery Manufacturing Industry Automation Research Institute, accusing the company of supplying equipment used to test missile engines in Pakistan. The sanctions were extended to three additional Chinese companies—Hubei Huachangda Intelligent Equipment, Xi’an Longde Technology Development, and Universal Enterprise—along with Pakistan-based Innovative Equipment, owned by Chinese national Luo Dongmei. These entities are alleged to have transferred equipment regulated under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

Washington claims the sanctioned companies provided materials for Pakistan’s Hawk 3 and Ababil ballistic missile programs. The Hawk 3 is a medium-range missile capable of reaching targets up to 2,750 kilometers, posing a strategic threat to neighboring India and parts of the Middle East. The Ababil missile, with a range of 1,800 kilometers, serves a similar tactical purpose.

Part of broader U.S. strategy

Security analysts argue the sanctions are part of a broader U.S. effort to curb China’s rising influence rather than a direct action against Pakistan. “This is more about containing China’s growth than targeting Pakistan specifically,” said Syed Muhammad Ali, a security expert based in Islamabad, in an interview with Nikkei Asia.

Ali emphasized that there is limited evidence linking China directly to Pakistan’s nuclear-capable missile programs. He noted that the majority of China-Pakistan defense cooperation centers on conventional weapons, aimed at strengthening Pakistan’s air force, army, and navy, rather than its missile development capabilities.

The Pakistani government quickly condemned the sanctions as politically motivated. “It is no secret that certain countries, while professing strict adherence to non-proliferation standards, selectively overlook licensing requirements for advanced military technologies when it suits their strategic interests,” said Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson Mumtaz Zahra Baloch.

Enduring China-Pakistan defense ties

China remains Pakistan’s largest arms supplier, accounting for 44% of Pakistan’s major arms imports between 2000 and 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The two nations have a deep history of defense collaboration, including the joint development of the JF-17 fighter jet and the Al-Khalid main battle tank. Recent procurements include J-10C aircraft, Wing Loong II drones, and Hangor-class submarines.

While the sanctions may not immediately impact Pakistan’s missile programs, experts warn of long-term consequences for defense cooperation. “Pakistan has no other significant partner for missile development if China continues to face U.S. sanctions,” said Michael Kugelman, director of the Wilson Center’s South Asia Institute.

Future challenges

The sanctions could complicate future defense transactions between China and Pakistan, as the dominance of the U.S. dollar may compel Chinese companies to comply with U.S. restrictions. Ayesha Siddiqa, a senior research fellow at King’s College London, pointed out that such financial dominance could make Chinese firms more cautious in future dealings with Pakistan.

Experts also warn that continued U.S. sanctions could strain Pakistan’s role in the broader U.S.-China geopolitical rivalry. “If China becomes less accessible due to these sanctions, Pakistan may be forced to look elsewhere for defense partners, a process that could take years,” Kugelman added. Pakistan’s past involvement in nuclear proliferation may further complicate its search for alternative suppliers.

Siddiqa noted that the sanctions are likely aimed at reassuring U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific region, emphasizing Washington’s commitment to countering the perceived threat of missile proliferation in the area.

The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP) held a public debate to select a new prime minister. The candidates shared their views on economic growth, security issues and political reform.

The most striking statement among the candidates was the call by leading candidate Shigeru Ishiba for the establishment of an Asian NATO, starting with Japan’s accession to ANZUS.

In previous press conferences, Ishiba has frequently expressed his desire to create an ‘Asian version of NATO’ and to bring parity to the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement. Ishiba often referred to the Ukraine issue during the meeting, saying: “Why is deterrence not working in Ukraine? Because there is no official NATO presence there”.

Ishiba served as director-general of the Japan Defence Agency in the cabinet of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi between 2002 and 2004. He then served for one year as defence minister under Yasuo Fukuda in 2007-2008. A senior figure in the LDP, Ishiba is one of those who believe that Japan should abandon its pacifist constitutional defence strategy.

In a debate with nine other candidates that focused on their economic and development plans, Ishiba said: “Asia’s security structure is gradually changing under the influence of existing relationships and value systems. This requires us to rethink the concepts of international cooperation and self-defence”.

On security policy, Secretary General Toshimitsu Motegi pointed out that the ‘Asian version of NATO’ advocated by former Secretary General Shigeru Ishiba was unrealistic. “It is theoretically possible to start with countries with similar environments,” Ishiba replied, referring to the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.

Motegi then recalled that this was a constitutional process, independent of party agendas, and said: “I think Ishiba will be the founder of the Asian version of NATO. Although the essence of NATO is being proposed, it is a system to protect member states from external aggression. Collective security and the right to self-defence are increasingly dependent on the LDP. This comprehensive study is about the constitution. Yes, Asia is a continent with different value systems. Very different from Europe in particular. For example, our relations and positions with China are on a different level. I wonder if this discourse has matured to support the progressive process in the relationship. On the other hand, will Singapore, Thailand and India be included in this group? I also think that this is unrealistic. What do you think, Mr Shiba, please respond?”

Ishiba argued that the understanding of collective security in Asia affects the relations of countries, which creates uncertainty about how regional security mechanisms will be shaped, and said: “The symbol of collective security is the United Nations. But is it possible to join the United Nations forces and use force? I advocate the Asian version of NATO because it is a different concept from the right of self-defence. We need to clarify everything, including the constitutional debate. I am fully aware of that, but which countries will be involved? This is only because there are various security mechanisms in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Japan and the United States, the US-Korea Security Treaty, the ANZUS Treaty and the Five Eyes Alliance under the United Kingdom. Yes, the earliest way to combine them is to add Japan to AZUS,” he said.

The alliance between Japan and the United States is an important factor in the security dynamics of the Asia-Pacific region. This creates the need to strengthen cooperation with other Asian countries. So much so that Ishiba’s statement that ‘Japan is the symbol of collective security’ shows the effort to establish hegemony in the Asia-Pacific with the US by establishing the epicentre in Japan to surround China and Russia in the region. When Ishiba was secretary general in the Abe cabinet, he argued for the need to pave the way for these constitutional changes.

Ishiba also announced that he would consider revising the Statute of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which governs US military operations in Japan.

The agreement was signed in 1960 when the US-Japan security treaty was revised and remains unchanged.

Many in Japan describe the SOFA as ‘unequal and occupying’, especially when it comes to accidents and crimes involving US military personnel.

Ishiba, as LDP leader and therefore prime minister, emphasised the need for closer military ties between the two countries and said that Japan wanted to establish a base in the US to train its Self-Defence Forces.

He then argued that the SOFA should be at the same level as the agreement that would be reached if such a Japanese military base were established in the United States.

If we are going to revise the SOFA, it should be something that strengthens the alliance and improves the regional security environment,” Ishiba said.