Pakistan makes large US soybean purchase as tensions with India rise
CHICAGO: Pakistan has made its biggest purchase of U.S. soybeans in nearly three years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said on Thursday, as the nation resumes imports of genetically engineered soy.
The purchases will only partially offset U.S. farmers' lost sales to top soy importer China because of President Donald Trump's trade war with Beijing. More than half of U.S. soybean exports are normally to China, while Pakistan's total imports in 2021 totaled just 1.4% of U.S. shipments abroad, according to U.S. government data.
Pakistan, which is clashing with India after a deadly attack on Indian tourists in the disputed territory of Kashmir, bought 225,000 metric tons of U.S. soybeans for delivery in the crop year that begins on Sept. 1, the USDA said via its daily reporting system. It was the country's largest one-off deal for U.S. soybeans since a 297,000-ton purchase in June 2022, according to agency data.
In retaliation for the April 22 attack, which left 26 people dead, India suspended a water-sharing pact with Pakistan, which denies any link to the Kashmir violence. Farmers in Pakistan who rely on the water for irrigation said crops could fail and people could go hungry.
Pakistan's large soybean purchase surprised market analysts.
Chicago soybeans, wheat rise amid trade deal hopes, US-China talks
'Pakistan is not the buyer that buys that amount of soybeans all in one slug before a new-crop season,' said Dan Basse, president of consultancy AgResource.
Pakistan began approving imports of genetically engineered soybeans in December after banning them in 2022, according to the USDA. The ban, which ruled out most U.S. soy, increased poultry feed prices and chicken meat prices in Pakistan, the agency said.
Pakistan imported 765,388 metric tons of U.S. soy in 2021, before the ban, and 2,644 metric tons last year, USDA data show.
The agency, in an April report, projected Pakistan's total imports will rebound to 2 million metric tons in the crop year that begins on Sept. 1. It said local soybean production is negligible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
US mediation offer
Listen to article The Kashmir dispute is not a regional fault line. It is a global flashpoint — one that demands more than sterile diplomatic statements and historical posturing. The recent military flare-up between Pakistan and India, the most serious between the two in decades, brought the subcontinent dangerously close to open conflict. A ceasefire was achieved, but not through bilateral diplomacy — it was the intervention from none other than the President of the United States of America that helped defuse the escalation that threatened what is called mutually agreed destruction. This begs the question: can the Kashmir dispute be resolved without the active involvement of a major world power? For far too long, India has been averse to third-party mediation, insisting that Kashmir is a bilateral matter in line with the Shimla Agreement of 1972. This rigid stance has, in effect, blocked any meaningful dialogue while allowing the conflict to fester. But the latest developments suggest a subtle shift. New Delhi and Islamabad, while not openly inviting mediation, allowed space for President Donald Trump to intervene — a notable departure from past rejections of third-party involvement. Just yesterday, the US Department of State reiterated Trump's willingness to help resolve the Kashmir issue, stating that "each step that he takes is made to solve generational differences between countries". This statement, while significant, should be viewed with cautious optimism considering the chequered US history. The stakes are too high to leave the longstanding Kashmir issue to empty slogans or rigid bilateralism. And as long as it remains unresolved, it will continue to poison relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbours and destabilise an already fragile region. Whether it is Trump or any other global leader, only a credible and powerful mediator can help break the deadlock. Currently, the US — which enjoys leverage over both Islamabad and New Delhi — remains best placed to lead that effort.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Military notes of Indo-Pak conflict — the rundown
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam During the last two weeks, in this series, we discussed the perceptual aspects of the recent Indo-Pak standoff, India's doctrinal collapse, the redefined deterrence and the 'Exterior' and 'Interior Maneuvers' by both sides, before and during the hostilities. We continue the debate… This was the first time that India under its supposed 'new normal' used 'cruise' missiles, both the BrahMos version (PJ-10 co-developed with Russia) as well as the European SCALP-EG targeting Pakistan proper. Pakistan also retaliated for the first time, employing its conventionally armed short-range Fatah-I and Fatah-II series of 'ballistic' missiles and other types. This was also the first time that RPVs (drones) were used with the intent of causing damage to the other side, in addition to reconnaissance and intelligence-collection roles. This was also the first time that strategic instability in South Asia was linked internationally to the unresolved Jammu and Kashmir dispute and not terrorism per se. Let us quickly recapture the timelines from April 22 to May 22, 2025. In run up to the crisis, on April 22, five militants killed 26 civilian tourists in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, including one Nepali national, leading to Indian finger pointing towards Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) groups. On April 23, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, closed Attari–Wagah border crossing, expelled Pakistan's military diplomats, reduced Pakistan's diplomatic staff and cancelled SAARC visas for Pakistani nationals. From April 23–30 border skirmishes took place. On April 24, Pakistan condemned the Pahalgam attack and termed India's response as 'unilateral'; and retaliated by cancelling Indian visas, evacuating Indian nationals, closing its airspace to Indian aircraft, halting all trade and warning India against diverting Indus water, calling it an act of war. On April 25, India initiated ceasefire violations across the LoC. National Security Committee (NSC) met in Pakistan on April 26. Iran stepped forward with an offer to mediate. And on April 30, India banned its airspace to Pakistan, and IAF intruded into Pakistani airspace. Escalation and military preparations took place during May 1–6. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, after some initial ambivalence, 'expected' to speak with both foreign ministers on May 1. On May 3, Pakistan successfully test-fired its short-range Abdali ballistic missile. India escalated by cutting off all mail and trade links with Pakistan, banning Pakistani vessels from its ports and warned Pakistani ships against entering the Indian waters. On May 4, India stopped downflow from Baglihar dam on River Chenab. On May 6, Pakistan shot down 29 Indian drones near the LoC and in Punjab. And Iran's FM visited Pakistan proposing mediation. In the military operations (May 7–10), India launched 'Operation Sindoor', on May 7, conducting missile strikes on nine sites in Pakistan (Bahawalpur, Muridke, Gulpur, Bhimber, Chak Amru, Bagh, Kotli, Sialkot and Muzaffarabad). On May 10, IAF attacked eight major Pakistani air bases, including Nur Khan base in Rawalpindi. Pakistan, early on May 10, retaliated with Operation 'Bunyan-un-Marsoos', launching missile and drone combo on 26 military targets across India, and in the Indian-occupied Kashmir. It also launched another wave of swarm drones, loitering munitions and Fatah missiles targeting 26 locations along India's western border. On the same day (May 10), the Saudi FM called for de-escalation, Secretary of State Rubio spoke with both PMs and NSAs, urging restraint. Pakistan's DGMO reached out to the Indian side for direct military-level communications. President Trump mediated the ceasefire and announced it on X. On May 11, Pakistan claimed victory against India. Both sides subsequently conducted propaganda offensive through aggressive diplomacy by sending delegations to global capitals. In between the above compressed timeline, a lot went through. The Indian attacks, as per information available through open sources, were 'supposedly calibrated' during May 8 and early on May 9, whereas the wider attacks during May 9-10, still 'presumably' calibrated, were dangerously escalatory, as these were aimed at Pakistan's SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences) systems, after IAF having lost aircraft on May 7. It was sometimes on the morning of May 9 (the US time and evening in India/Pakistan), that the US received unspecified, new but 'alarming intelligence' about dangerous escalation between both sides, as reported by CNN and corroborated by The New York Times. The US worries emerged before the dramatic escalation during the night of May 9-10, but no source has actually 'identified' those worries. The 'speculation' is that Washington observing Pakistan's launch of short-range Fatah-I and -II ballistic missiles and others for the first time during May 9-10 night got aggressively involved. Islamabad's stockpile of tactical nuclear arsenal and Indian thinking of continuing a conventional war of punitive retribution provided a background to it. Some analysts also attribute it to Pakistan's deft diplomacy, signalling to and drawing on the US interlocution, spurred by 'readiness changes in Pakistan's stockpiles', besides the announced meeting of Pakistan's National Command Authority, that oversees the non-conventional means of war i.e. the nuclear weapons. The DG ISPR had, on May 9, declined calls for de-escalation due to the planned riposte under Pakistan's 'quid-pro-quo plus' strategy, to equalise losses caused by the Indian attacks. India later struck Nur Khan airbase around 2:30 am on May 10. This attack was meant to 'strike where it would hurt', to quote the Indian Director-General Air Operations, Air Marshal Bharti. However, that was an escalatory message. The Indian attacks also targeted Rafiqui, Rahim Yar Khan and Sukkur bases during the first wave of strikes, followed by the IAF strikes at Sargodha, Bholari and Jacobabad airbases and some military infrastructure at Murid, Chunian, Arifwala and Pasrur. This was India 'knocking on the nuclear door', and it presumably provided more muscle and lethality to Pakistan's riposte, that was dubbed equally if alarmingly escalatory by Washington. In de-escalation, the predominant view is that the Saudis, the Americans, the Turks and the Qataris rushed to quell India 'not because Pakistan asked, but because Delhi could not stabilize the board…Pakistan had not flinched; it had not folded. It escalated, absorbed and redrew the board'. More on ceasefire exclusively later. Continues…
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Migration crisis: what really matters?
Listen to article When President Donald Trump signed an executive order back in January banning refugee resettlement, citing national security and the need to "protect the homeland", it wasn't just a policy shift but a declaration of how the modern world views displacement. Refugees are increasingly seen not as victims of circumstance, but as potential threats, burdens or political pawns. The tough reality that emerges with increasingly strong borders and inflammatory people-powered politics is: in the world at large, is it borders or bodies that weigh more? The United States, long a symbol of refuge, has been retreating from its commitments. Under Trump's previous administration, the refugee cap reached historic lows, and entire populations were blocked entry on the basis of religion and nationality. Now, the familiar language of fear is back, cloaked in sovereignty, but rooted in exclusion. And this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Across Europe, the narrative echoes. The UK's attempts to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, Italy's criminalisation of migrant rescue ships and Greece's illegal pushbacks in the Aegean all signal a global trend: the securitisation of human movement. Refugees are treated less like people in need and more like liabilities to be managed, repelled or offloaded. But in today's world, the category of the "refugee" itself is expanding — or at least, should be. While the 1951 Geneva Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing persecution due to race, religion, nationality or political opinion, this framework fails to accommodate the new and growing class of displaced persons: climate migrants. Many people are made homeless each year by floods, droughts, fires and flooding waters. Entire nations on islands are in peril and at the same time, changing weather in South Asia and Africa leads to conflicts and destroys people's livelihoods. These people do not receive the same status as refugees, according to international rules. No one is protecting them and there is no form of recognition set aside for them. This lack of rules further highlights a weakness in how the world is run. The rules in war do not update as the world shifts. Refugee institutions made after World War II do not keep up with the issues caused by today's displacement. Although the Geneva Convention is admired, it no longer works well. It cannot address the blurred lines between conflict and climate, between persecution and poverty, between war and weather. As a result, these grey zones are overlooked by the international community as rich nations stop accepting refugees but claim to follow humanitarian principles. This raises a fundamental moral dilemma: What are borders actually protecting? If the answer is sovereignty, then sovereignty itself becomes a justification for indifference. Hannah Arendt once warned of the danger faced by those who lose the "right to have rights". Today, millions roam the world with no state to speak for them, no law to defend them and no border willing to welcome them. Their existence is a daily negotiation with rejection. The debate is not just about who crosses borders; it's about how the global order prioritises state security over human security; it's about whether IR will keep being just about power or if it will become something fairer and more open. We can no longer afford to treat migration as a temporary crisis or a political inconvenience. Climate displacement, economic collapse and civil conflict are not going away; they are the future. And that future demands new definitions, new protections and, above all, new compassion. If we continue to worship borders and ignore the bodies knocking on them, then we must also accept what that reveals about our values. If the world is set up to protect the few at the expense of the disadvantaged, it will not be a true just society. And in the end, the lines we draw on maps will mean little if they come at the cost of our shared humanity.
