Just like men, some countries are more equal than others. Were it not so, the US must have thought twice before treading along the delicate albeit hypocritical path of selective sanctions in the name of the proliferation of missile technologies. Last week, for the sixth time in a row and within months of previous sanctions, the US State Department slapped sanctions on a Chinese firm over claims of providing supplies to Pakistan for its ballistic missile program. Sandwiched between a superpower rivalry, one of which wishes to send a humbling message, Pakistan finds itself at a crossroads again as its aspirations to test the rocket motors for exceptionally long-range Shaheen-3 and Ababeel systems fall into limbo. Nevertheless, its missile program continues to proceed, leading to improvements in range, accuracy, and payload capacity. On more than one occasion, Washington lobbies have issued hollow statements reflecting broader policy objectives of preventing the spread of these destructive technologies in fragile zones. Sadly, if it were true, the same peace-centric approach would have stopped the war lobby from constantly indulging Israel, whose determination to create new records in genocide is an open secret. Why is it that Pakistan should suffer at the hands of the political use of export controls when blue-eyed nuclear economies like India are handed a clean chit to build their arsenal however they like? That it continues to comply with the guidelines from the Missile Technology Control Regime even when the 35-state body has yet to welcome it in its folds speaks volumes about its preference for deterrence over aggression. Much to its relief, China has already echoed the sentiments expressed by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry against “unfair and politically motivated” policies, emphasising regular exchanges on arms control and nonproliferation and are on track for their 10th annual meeting in this regard, scheduled for next year in Beijing. The US, or any other member of the rich-country club, cannot achieve stability by relying on military asymmetry, especially in regions where conflicts are ongoing. This approach ignores the complexities of geopolitics and is not a viable long-term solution. *