Peterson Institute research staff
The Peterson Institute for International Economics is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan
research institution devoted to the study of international economic policy. More › ›
RSS News Feed Search

Case Studies in Sanctions and Terrorism: North Korea

Case Studies in Sanctions and Terrorism

<< Case Studies Index

Case 99-3
US, Japan v. Pakistan (1999–2001: Coup, restore democracy)
See also Case 79-2: US v. Pakistan (1979– : Nuclear Missile Proliferation)

| Chronology of Key Events | Goals of Sender Country | Response to Target Country |
Attitude of Other Countries | Economic Impact | Assessment |
Author's Summary | Bibliography |

Goals of Sender Country

United States

Assistant Secretary of State Karl F. Inderfurth
“…[U]ntil we see a restoration of a civilian democratic government in Pakistan, we have made it clear we would not be in a position to carry on business as usual with Pakistani authorities.” (Testimony by Assistant Secretary Karl F. Inderfurth, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 14 October 1999)

President George W. Bush
“Pakistan’s efforts against terror are benefiting the entire world and linking Pakistan more closely with the world. The United States wants to help build these linkages. I’ve authorized a lifting of sanctions, and over $1 billion in U.S. support. I will also back debt relief for Pakistan…. I’m pleased that the President is committed to restore democracy in Pakistan. Pakistan is a strong ally; President Musharraf is a strong leader, and the world is deeply appreciative for his leadership.” (President Bush, Remarks during Press Availability, New York, 10 November 2001)


Japanese embassy political counselor, Masami Kinefuchi
“Japan will review resumption of its official development assistance if Pakistan shows a concrete process on return to democracy, like a timeframe, and a decision to sign the CTBT.” (Reuters, 27 October 1999)

Response of Target Country

Senior Pakistani military official
“There is no doubt in our minds that the world will never accept military rule, but we are in for the long haul…. We have decided we must cleanse a political system that allows corrupt people to decide the destiny of our people.” (Washington Post, 15 October 1999, A24)

General Pervez Musharraf
“I will go according to the needs and requirements of Pakistan…. That will be supreme in my mind, and not international demands.” (New York Times, 2 November 1999, A10)

Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar
“U.S. sanctions against Pakistan single out one country and are not consistent with friendly relations…. The U.S. government and the U.S. Congress should adopt a more general, evenhanded, balanced approach to Pakistan.” (Dow Jones, 16 June 2000)

Attitude of Other Countries

European Union
“The EU is gravely concerned by developments in Pakistan, and condemns the recent actions of the Pakistan military…. “The immediate restoration of democracy and the rule of law is essential. …The EU believes strongly that Pakistan needs stable and democratic government. It also requires such a government to sustain its economic reform programme, and in the absence of the conditions for such a programme future IFI lending should be withheld.” (European Union declaration in Tampere, 16 October 1999, Bulletin of the European Union, October 1999)


The Durban Communiqué
“Heads of Government condemned the unconstitutional overthrow of the democratically elected Government of Pakistan on 12 October 1999. They believed that no legitimacy should be accorded to the military regime and called for the restoration on civilian democratic rule without delay.” (The Durban Communiqué, 12–15 November 1999,


Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy
“Canada deplores this action by Pakistan’s military…. The unconstitutional overthrow of Pakistan’s democratically elected government is unacceptable, and we call on General Musharraf to immediately restore democracy.” (Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, News Release, 13 October 1999)

<< top of page