THE recent move to block the bank accounts of individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activities may well be a positive step, but it has rightly left many people puzzled. Much more will be required to credibly start shutting down the funding lines of terrorists. And furthermore, there is justified bafflement at the timing of the affair. Since the launch of the National Action Plan, the government has struggled to meet its commitment to track down the funding lines of terrorist groups, and the track record in listing banned organisations, as well as freezing their funds is quite dismal. Only last year, Nacta — the body that generated the list — was found to be misleading the prime minister on the amount of money that has been frozen under NAP. A large part of the difficulty in pursuing terror financing was the absence of a list of terrorist groups and individuals, which left the State Bank in the dark about whose finances it should be tracking. Now we hear that a list has been generated, with over 2,000 names, and passed on to the State Bank. So what happened to make this possible so suddenly now when the exercise had been languishing for over a year and a half?
The move will only appear credible if it is followed up with an even larger list, and if terrorist groups are also similarly identified, as well those who serve as their abettors. Eventually, whatever list is created should be in harmony with the terrorist groups named in UN Security Council Resolution 1267, which is a commitment that Pakistan has signed on to but not delivered upon thus far. Until that happens, questions will continue to be asked about the meaning and intent of the exercise, since it appears to be a highly selective one. The State Bank should be more forthcoming about all that it needs in order to play its part in tracking terror financing. It is a myth that terrorist groups never use the formal banking system and rely only on cash transactions to undertake their activities. Fact of the matter is that the banking system is widely used by them, but either under assumed names, or behind the protections afforded by an almost deliberate ambiguity in the listing of banned organisations. At the moment, there is reason to cheer the move undertaken by Nacta, but a lot depends on how much further the exercise is taken.
Published in Dawn, September 27th, 2016