Ban on militant groups
IN the long, convoluted history of the Pakistani state banning militant groups, the present episode may be the most mysterious: a US government spokesperson has publicly and explicitly welcomed a decision by Pakistan to ban several more militant groups, even though absolutely no one in government here has made any such announcement. If US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf`s assertion in a news briefing on Friday proves true `We welcome [the decision] to outlaw the Haqqani network, Jamaatud Dawa, and I think about 10 other organisations linked to violent extremism,` Ms Harf is quoted as saying it would demonstrate that the bad old days of Pakistani leaders treating external powers as more relevant and important in matters of national security than, say, the Pakistani public or parliament have never really gone away. Even more problematically, the latest move if, indeed, it is announced soon, as Ms Harf has claimed it will be would bolster the perception that Pakistan is fighting militancy at the behest of others, especially the US, and not because this is a war that this country must fight and win for its own survival.
There is no doubt that the Pakistani state needs to do more against a much wider spectrum of militant and extremist groups operating its soil. Focusing on simply the so-called anti-Pakistan militant networks such as the TTP will only produce medium-term results, perhaps, but guarantees long-term failure in the fight against militancy. This is both because of the overlapping nature of militant groups operational, strategic and ideological and because a long-term future where the state is in competition with militias for predominance inside Pakistan is not a future that ought to be acceptable to anyone in this country. So yes, the Haqqani network needs to be banned as does the Jamaatud Dawa and sundry more names that may come to light soon. But without a zero-tolerance policy against militancy, there will be no winning strategy. Zero tolerance certainly does not mean simply military operations and heavy-handed counterterrorism measures in the urban areas; what it does suggest is a commitment to progressively disarm and dismantle militant groups and the wider extremist network that enables those groups to survive and thrive.
Of course, simply banning more groups will not mean much unless the previous bans are implemented, the new bans cover all incarnations of a militant group, and there are sustained efforts by the law-enforcement and intelligence apparatus to ensure banned organisations do not quietly regroup once the initial focus fades. That has never happened before. And the present is even more complicated. What will a ban on the Haqqani network mean in practice given that the major sanctuary in North Waziristan has already been disrupted by Operation Zarb-e-Azb? What will banning the JuD mean for the Falahi Insaniyat Foundation? Will the government offer answers to anything?
Climate change
SUCH is the ferocious immediacy of the threat of terrorism that a whole host of other issues, some that may in the long term prove perhaps equally debilitating for the country, have ended up being pushed into the shadows. The battle against polio springs immediately to mind. Another such area is climate change, the effects of which are already being felt globally and which will have in the future a devastating effect on vulnerable terrains.
Unhappily, Pakistan joins several other developing countries in having done little to trigger climate change, but are likely to bear the brunt of the effects. This was pointed out yet again in Islamabad on Thursday, as members of the Parliamentary Task Force on Sustainable Development Goals attended a presentation on the issue.
They were told that Pakistan ranks 135th among carbon-emitting countries and contributes merely 0.8 per cent to global carbon emissions; nevertheless, it is still included in the eight countries most vulnerable to climate change. In the view of Dr Qamaruzzaman Chaudhry, a former director-general of the Meteorological Office and vice president of the World Meteorological Organisation, already `a considerable increase in intense floods, rains, extreme weather and other climatic changes has been noted in Pakistan.
This country is amongst the few developing nations with a ministry for climate change, and in 2013 launched its first national policy in this regard. On paper, this was a holistic plan, laying down policy measures for mitigation as well as adaptation for sectors that include energy, transport, agriculture and livestock, industries, forestry and water resources, etc. But, as always, it is in the phases of implementation and engagement that not enough will has been displayed. True, some effort has been made, such as the Punjab government offering farmers incentives to adapt to more sustainable and efficient methodologies, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government launching some reforestation drives. Some universities, too, have helped raise awareness about the effects of climate change and mitigation measures. But these have tended to be few and piecemeal, and a cohesive effort to concurrently take on all dimensions of the issue is hardly in evidence. The potential severity of the coming changes can be gauged from Dr Chaudhry`s warning that in the next 30 to 40 years, `there may be no more water in the River Indus because all the glaciers have melted.` Pakistan drags its heels over the matter at its own peril.
KASB depositors
IT has been two months since the State Bank of Pakistan moved to place a moratorium on KASB Bank, telling depositors that withdrawals beyond Rs300,000 would not be allowed for six months at least. The step created a fair amount of unease amongst other banks, but it was depositors who worried the most. Fortunately the episode did not have any spillover effects on the rest of the banking system and panicked withdrawals did not occur. In part this was because of a reassuring message put out by the SBP that the situation is temporary and withdrawals would be permitted soon. Given the Rs300,000 withdrawal limit, most retail depositors felt assured that the situation would normalise before they had exhausted this limit.
It has now been two months and the concern amongst retail depositors is growing. Businesses that maintained their accounts at KASB are now reduced to borrow to bridge the non-availability of those funds. Now that due diligence has begun for eventual sale of KASB, depositors further fear that they will be made to wait for the entire length of time it takes to sell the bank and merge its operations with those of the new buyer before they will be allowed to withdraw their funds. That means the wait could be a lot longer than what they had been prepared for. The State Bank needs to address the growing anxiety amongst the depositors that their funds will be safe and available for withdrawal within, if not sooner, than the stipulated six months. Safeguarding the interests of the large investors in KASB, as well as ensuring that it fetches as decent a price as possible given the circumstances, cannot be larger priorities than safeguarding the trust the depositors placed in the institution. The reputation of the entire banking industry in Pakistan could be adversely impacted if depositors` anxiety is not addressed. This would be a grave consequence, especially in light of the fact that there is no deposit insurance in Pakistan.