A delicate moment
September 15th, 2012
A dubious character of unclear nationality makes a highly offensive film about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the US. With the help of others who, based on the available footage, had little purpose beyond tastelessly mocking the religion, a portion of it reaches the Arab world on the Internet. Understandably, in a part of the world where many are protective of their faith above all else, these clips spark deep offence. And the protests that follow once again feed into the false and destabilising impression that there is a war between civilisations, raising questions about whether Muslim countries and the West can survive peacefully alongside each other in an increasingly globalised world. The reality is, though, that controversies such as the one over this film or the Danish cartoons or the Quran-burning in Texas are not in fact conflicts between monolithic concepts of ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’. Nor are they attempts by certain countries or governments to destablise others. They are storms brewed by small numbers of incendiary, irresponsible people with little regard for global sensitivities or the consequences their actions can have.
The best way to respond to such actions is to ignore them or to protest peacefully, and that is where the reaction to the film clips in some Muslim countries could have been different. Attacking American missions and their innocent employees holds a government responsible for the actions of independent actors. It chooses violence over the rule of law. And it works against Muslims themselves, strengthening the paranoid impression that has developed around the world that they harbour a deep and dangerous hatred of all things non-Muslim. Responding violently to the creations of fringe elements simply feeds into the false impressions of Islam these elements believe in and are trying to perpetuate.
But in the days to come it is not just violence, but politics and diplomacy that will also be at stake. How this plays out will in part depend on how the issue is handled by America and Egypt, where the president is trying to balance the country’s newly won democracy with his obligations to the outside world. The US-backed Arab Spring has, as a natural consequence of increased freedom, given more space to religious conservatives. The way to tackle this increased complexity is for America to honour sensitivities in the Muslim world and for Muslim countries to keep violence in check. Neither can afford to let democracy in the region, or relations between America and Muslim countries, be held hostage to the actions of a group of reckless and insensitive film-makers.
Unclear changes
September 15th, 2012
The revisions to the Anti Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism Regulations may be a positive move but hardly go far enough. For instance, under the new regulations “banks/DFIs shall not open or maintain anonymous accounts or accounts in the name of fictitious persons or numbered accounts” and “shall not provide any banking services to proscribed entities and persons or to those who are associated with such entities and persons, whether under the proscribed name or with a different name”. The layperson can be forgiven for being puzzled. Does this mean that before the new regulations, banks were able to open anonymous accounts, numbered accounts, accounts in the name of proscribed entities and persons connected with the latter? If so, how was this possible after years of fighting a war against internal insurgent groups widely reported to be using funds earned from illegal activities to finance their operations? If not, why were these regulations issued in the first place?
There is much in the new regulations that makes one wonder if we have been serious in our campaign against militancy all along. For example, we know that money is moving through the clearing houses of Quetta and Peshawar in quantities so large that one cannot even guess what kind of economic activity is driving these. If it’s true that banks have not been maintaining enough data about the intercity movement of funds, especially data that would help identify the beneficiary, then that is an oversight that must be explained. Will banks now maintain a list of proscribed groups and individuals associated with them so as to be able
to deny them account-
opening privileges? Much of what needs to be done to ensure the financial system has no entry points for illicit money — for money belonging to proscribed groups and for tax-evaded wealth — requires greater cooperation between the financial system and authorities such as the Federal Board of Revenue and interior ministry. Let’s hope this first step towards cleaning up our financial system is followed up by other measures required to make anti money-laundering and terror-financing efforts more effective.
An impatient ANF
September 15th, 2012
The Anti Narcotics Force could have avoided the unsavoury episode outside the Supreme Court on Friday. It is true that the force was tasked to arrest MNA Ali Musa Gilani and there were also reports the accused had gone into hiding. Yet the visibly forceful interception when a court hearing was just a few yards away made little sense. With live cameras at hand, the ANF roughed up the young MNA before arresting him as he arrived to appear before the SC.
In something of an anticlimax, Mr Gilani was free after barely an hour in custody — and he was free to contribute to his party’s case against the ‘selective persecution’ of its members. Speaking outside the court following the acceptance of his bail plea in the ephedrine quota investigation, he found the moment opportune for a comparison between those who abided by the law and those who didn’t. His emphasis was on his status as an elected representative and he was soon joined by party colleagues protesting, one, the humiliation of parliamentarians and two, singling out PPP for this treatment.
By the looks of it an incident that could have been averted is going to spur another charged round in the ongoing debate. The PPP will come up with more ‘evidence’ to prove its allegations and its political opponents will try to paint the PPP government as corrupt beyond redemption. Along with its more obvious fallouts, its political gains and losses, this politicisation of the affair could stall the start of a wider, more thorough probe into the pharmaceutical industry that the emergence of this case had promised. Few have been able to venture into this territory even when it is a constant source of rumour and suspicion and is so worthy of some intervention by an authoritative force.