Former prime minister Imran Khan has been charged under Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act which marks the latest escalation in a bitter power feud between the ousted leader and the current coalition government. The criminal complaint is based on comments that Khan made that were perceived to threaten a judge and police but is clearly politically motivated. An arrest could lead to political violence.
Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act is broad, often employed as a catch-all, and extends far beyond the popular understanding of what constitutes “terrorism.” So far Khan managed to secure pre-arrest bail until Thursday. After that time he could face arrest which would likely spark mass protests. Pakistan is currently facing widespread flooding and an economic crisis that has required bailouts from the IMF and regional countries. Factional politics in Pakistan are stronger than ever despite these collective crises.
Imprisonment of opposition political leaders is not an uncommon occurrence in Pakistan and members of the current government faced jail time during Imran Khan’s tenure. But in the current political environment an arrest of Imran Khan would mark an inflection point with the potential to turn violent.
It also fuels Khan’s populist message which is rooted in the notion that the current government’s power was won sneakily rather than through popular mandate. Khan was removed from office in April via a no confidence vote in the National Assembly. Since then he has railed against what he characterizes as a regime change conspiracy. An arrest would derail Khan’s campaigning but may also be a boon for his popularity.
Adam Weinstein is Deputy Director of the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute, whose current research focuses on security and rule of law in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. (shutterstock/Awais khan)
Palesitinians leave Khan Yunis towards safer areas in Rafah following the directives of the Israeli army, instructing residents of the Hamad area to vacate their homes and proceed towards Rafah, near the border with Egypt, 03/04/2024 via Reuters
Israel has begun launching airstrikes in Rafah ahead of a likely invasion of the city, where more than 1.5 million Gazans have taken shelter in camps near the border with Egypt.
The airstrikes came just hours after the Israeli government told Palestinians to flee the city, a demand that aid groups fear will worsen the already dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, where famine has begun to take hold. The European Union’s foreign policy chief called the evacuation order “unacceptable.”
The apparent decision to invade Rafah comes as ceasefire talks broke down over the weekend. Israel says the logjam came after an alleged Hamas attack on Israeli soldiers at the Kerem Shalom crossing, while Hamas blamed the breakdown on Israel’s decision to start evacuations of Rafah.
The possibility of an Israeli assault in Rafah puts President Joe Biden in a precarious position. The White House has already found itself at odds with many Democrats due to Biden’s refusal to break with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his deadly campaign in Gaza. A bloody escalation of the war would further divide his party and ratchet up pressure to do something to stop Israel’s campaign.
Biden may have already internalized that message. On Friday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that, absent a credible plan to protect civilians, “we can’t support a major military operation going into Rafah because the damage it would do is beyond what’s acceptable.”
But the Biden administration has consistently balked at opportunities to hold Israel accountable for alleged war crimes and human rights abuses. Just last week, the White House walked back a threat to restrict weapons transfers to certain Israeli units due to “gross violations of human rights.”
A new chance to restrict arms sales could come Wednesday of this week, when the Biden administration will issue a mandatory report to Congress evaluating Israel’s assurances that it won’t use American weapons in ways that violate U.S. and international laws.
An independent analysis from legal experts and former State Department officials found numerous attacks that should have already triggered a cutoff in U.S. support. And nearly 90 House Democrats signed a letter last week calling on the administration to suspend certain weapons transfers to Israel.
A key question is whether a Rafah invasion will further restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid. Experts say Israel has already violated U.S. law stipulating that Washington will not give weapons to countries that block American aid transfers, and a Rafah invasion would likely lead to further violations.
There is also significant doubt surrounding Israeli assurances that its operation will minimize harm to civilians. Those who are now fleeing Rafah will reportedly have to evacuate to nearby Khan Younis and al-Mawasi, neither of which has the capacity to receive incoming displaced people or provide them with much-needed aid.
It’s unclear how many Gazans will be able to escape before the full-scale assault begins. Israel’s previous actions suggest that its tolerance for killing civilians is higher than that of that of the Biden administration.
Biden will have a chance to impart that message later today, when he will reportedly speak with Netanyahu and presumably urge the Israeli leader to change course. But the question remains: Is the Biden administration finally ready to publicly break with Israel?
During RTX’s May 2 annual meeting, the company board and its financiers voted on a shareholder resolution proposing a report that would detail the human rights impact of the defense conglomerate.
In a recorded message, Sister Ann Scholz of the School Sisters of Notre Dame Cooperative fund urged shareholders to vote in favor of the proposal. “The intent is to help RTX ensure that its business practices are aligned with its human rights commitments and obligations as articulated in the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,” said Sholz.
The resolution, which would be non-binding if adopted, only received 5.41% of votes, according to preliminary results. A similar proposal at Lockheed Martin failed.
Transparency around the defense industry could reveal uncomfortable truths for Wall Street. Many of the investors in the defense industry claim to adhere to internationally- agreed-upon frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.N. Guiding Principles, which states that businesses should “avoid infringing on the human rights of others and should address adverse human rights impacts with which they are involved.”
For example, State Street is the largest investor in Lockheed Martin with over $16 billion worth of shares. According to its human rights policy, the company “supports fundamental principles of human rights, such as those adopted in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” State Street says its policies are “designed to prevent the illegal use of our products and services, including those that may result in human rights violations.”
Capital Group, which holds at least $13 billion in shares of RTX through different divisions, also endorses the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and claims to have a “higher level of scrutiny” for businesses that violate the U.N. Global Impact and OECD Guidelines. “We believe that it is important for our portfolio holdings to uphold these fundamental standards in their own operations and throughout their supply chains to maintain their license to operate,” its policy states.
However, the defense companies that these financiers invest in have helped enable Israel’s campaign in Gaza, which the International Court of Justice has suggested could be a genocide. RTX supplies the Israeli military with air-to-surface missiles and cluster bombs, and manufactures engines for the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets that have been used to bomb Gaza. Lockheed Martin provides Israel with hellfire missiles and F-16 and F-35 fighter jets used to bomb Gaza. Missiles manufactured by Lockheed Martin were confirmed to have been used to strike journalists near Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on November 9 of last year. At Lockheed Martin’s annual meeting, also held on May 2nd, CEO Jaimes Taiclet said that the company is planning to deliver 20 F-16s and at least 75 F-35s this year.
Human Rights Watch and Oxfam have documented that “Israeli authorities have carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks in violation of international humanitarian law following the Hamas-led October 7 attacks in Israel,” including collective punishments and depriving civilians of basic necessities. All of this is public knowledge, yet companies like State Street and Capital Group continue to invest.
"What we do know is that banks' human rights statements are misaligned with their actions. Investors don't have clear evidence that they're actually being implemented,” added Jilianne Lyon, who leads shareholder advocacy campaigns at Investor Advocates for Social Justice and worked on the shareholder resolution proposal at RTX.
Shareholders have significant leverage to change company behavior through asset allocation, voting, engagement, and divesting, yet they rarely exercise this influence. Felix Nagrawala, Senior Research Manager at ShareAction, told Responsible Statecraft that financiers often “make high-level public promises to follow international law, only to invest in weapons companies and block shareholder resolutions seeking to mandate reports from those companies on how weapons are used and their human rights impact.”
Indeed, during RTX’s earnings call on April 23, no investors asked about potential human rights violations or how these weapons are being used, even though the State Department published its country report on Israel just a day earlier that detailed “arbitrary or unlawful killings” by government agents.
Instead, investors wanted to talk about the $90 billion aid package to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. “Could you speak a little bit to the supplemental that got through the House and how that plays out for your defense business. What goodies are in there for you guys?” asked Ron Epstein, an analyst from Bank of America.
“Think GEM-T, NASAMS, Patriot, AMRAAM, AIM9X, Israel, we kind of handicapped that as about 30% addressable, stockpile replenishment, Iron Dome, David's Sling procurements,” said Chris Calio, who became RTX’s new CEO at the shareholder meeting. “We think our product portfolio is pretty well positioned to address the needs in each of those theaters,” Calio continued. Many of these weapons have been used in Israel’s offensive in Gaza.
Bank of America holds over $1.7 billion worth of shares in RTX and endorses the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labor Organization’s Fundamental Conventions, and the U.N. Guiding Principles. According to their human rights policy, the bank seeks to mitigate adverse human rights impacts “directly linked to us through strong client selection procedures which are core to our responsible growth strategy.”
William Haldin, a spokesperson for Bank of America, told Responsible Statecraft that “The shares you’re referencing would be owned by clients and held in their accounts at Bank of America (or Merrill Lynch) not shares actually owned by the bank. Unfortunately, some advocacy groups are mistaken when they make reports and wrongly attribute ownership to us. It’s unfortunate.”
Capital Group and State Street did not respond to requests for comment.
Joe Herbert, a Senior Research Officer at ShareAction, told Responsible Statecraft that the daylight between Wall Street and the defense companies they support creates room for plausible deniability. “It is difficult for arms companies to claim that they are abiding by the UN Guiding Principles, but for an investor there is another degree of separation," said Herbert.
Why even have human rights policies if these companies won’t act on them? In short, because of the cover the U.S. government provides Israel which in turn shields defense companies and their shareholders from criticism. For example, at a press briefing in March, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said “We have not found them [Israel] to be in violation of international humanitarian law, either when it comes to the conduct of war or when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance.”
Even though the U.N. Guiding Principles exist “independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfill their own human rights obligations,” Wall Street pays little attention. Instead, it appears they are more interested in the “goodies.”
Providing funds towards artillery and munitions development, replenishing defense systems, and Gaza aid, the package also includes $1.2 billion towards Israel’s sci-fiesque “Iron Beam” laser weapon, a prospective directed energy system for air defense.
Once operational, Iron Beam’s systems appear slated to revolutionize Israel’s defense capacities, escalate the ongoing crisis in Gaza and already boiling tensions in the Middle East, and normalize lasers’ use in warfare as efforts towards directed energy weapons (DEWs) intensify. What’s more, the U.S. seems interested in procuring Iron Beam and adjacent technologies to its own ends, perhaps facilitating DEWs’ further future proliferation.
What is Iron Beam?
A prospective successor to Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense system, which launches missiles to intercept and shoot down incoming threats within Israeli borders, Iron Beam is a directed energy system that neutralizes or brings down incoming projectiles with a fiber laser.
"[Iron Beam] is a game-changer because we cannot only strike the enemy militarily but also weaken it economically," former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett remarked back in 2022, explaining that with Iron Beam, “[Israel’s adversaries can] invest tens of thousands of dollars in a rocket and we can invest two dollars to cover the cost of the electricity in shooting down the rocket."
Bad weather can blunt the system’s effectiveness, however, which means Iron Beam is perhaps best used in tandem with the Iron Dome system for comprehensive air defense.
Aware of their potential, a number of countries are developing DEWs. The UK recently tested its “DragonFire” laser weapon, which reportedly can hit a coin from a kilometer away. And Russia’s Peresvet laser system, designed to disable or “blind” high-altitude spacecraft, like satellites, and the Zadira laser system, which can shoot down drones, further, are being tested on Ukraine’s battlefields.
Likewise, the U.S. spends about $1 billion annually to develop laser and adjacent directed energy weaponry. Notably, the U.S. Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office is overseeing an Indirect Fire Protection Capability-High Energy Laser prototype program, awarding Lockheed Martin with a contract for the project in October 2023. Once operational, the laser is designed to counter or neutralize rockets, artillery, mortars and other projectiles hostile to warfighters in tandem with a military’s other defense components.
Ultimately, DEWs offer a cheap, accurate solution for militaries looking to counter drones and other aerial threats. But their destructive capacities, where Iron Beam’s lasers are able to neutralize and destroy many projectiles with a simple laser fire, are clear and contribute to an ever more perilous future for warfare.
Military aid to Israel accelerates DEW proliferation
Iron Beam’s pending operationality, whose deployment is reportedly being expedited by manufacturer Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, poses heightened dangers within the context of Israel’s ongoing destruction of the Gaza Strip. Although Iron Beam was created for defensive purposes, Israel could plausibly repurpose its lasers as offensive purposes. Indeed, Israel has previously utilized other controversial and experimental weapons systems in Gaza, such as its new AI-powered Gospel and Lavender systems for military targeting.
Meanwhile, just as the U.S. had purchased batteries for Israel’s Iron Dome in the past (after October 7, it leased the two Iron Dome missile systems it purchased back to Israel), the U.S. is considering procuring Iron Beam for itself, suggesting that U.S. military aid to Israel is not only about assisting an ally, but also about expanding and upping U.S. military capacities.
Ultimately, U.S. military aid to Israel enables and exacerbates its campaign against the Palestinian people while fueling prospects for greater conflict in the region. When applied towards projects like Iron Beam, moreover, such funds assist the introduction and normalization of consequential and destructive weapons systems within military contexts without substantive public debate.