THE government appears to be caught in a wrangle in its attempts to create a list of proscribed terrorist outfits operating in Pakistan. The need to create such a list appears to stem from a combination of international pressure and the requirements of a coherent anti-terror campaign at home.

In late December, the National Counter-Terrorism Authority (Nacta) website carried a list of all proscribed groups in Pakistan, which was updated in early January before being removed from the site by the middle of the month, shortly after the visit by US Secretary of State John Kerry.

But internet is a tricky place, and both lists remain accessible even though by now the Nacta website has been taken down entirely. Some links on the site continue to function, and at least one snapshot of the site as it existed on Dec 27 is available from a web archiving service.

A glance at the contents of both lists, and the context surrounding them, is enough to reveal why they were uploaded only to be removed later.

Also read: Banning terror groups

The first list contained names of sixty organisations, including Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ), proscribed in 2012, formerly known as the Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan, which was proscribed in 2002. Individuals belonging to this group have run for elections from Karachi. This list also contained two names as “enlisted under UNSCR 1267”, which included Al Rashid Trust and Al Akhtar Trust. The Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) is listed separately under a category “Enlisted under observation”. It is not clear what “under observation” means in this matter.

By early January, a second and updated list had appeared on the Nacta website. The updated version named twelve organisations as “enlisted under UNSCR 1267”. They were: Taliban, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM), Umma Tameer-e-Nau, Jamaatud Dawa (JuD), Al Akhtar Trust, Al Rashid Trust, Harkat-ul-Jihad Islami, Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation (FiF), Haji Khairullah Haji Israr Money Exchange, Roshan Money Exchange and Rahat Ltd.

The expanded list appears to have become controversial very quickly, since it was taken down days after being uploaded. The presence of names like JuD and FiF, the latter being the welfare arm of the former, is said to be the source of the controversy.

Know more: Pakistan's banned organisations list to match UN blacklist

The first list seems to have been generated during the formation of the National Internal Security Policy (Nisp), which was placed before the National Assembly in Feb 2014. It was not made public, but press reports carrying its contents were linked to the Nacta website back then.

Shortly after the second list was uploaded on the Nacta website, the US State Department congratulated Pakistan on successfully banning the Haqqani network, prompting questions in Pakistan because the ban was never formally announced.

The list was removed shortly after John Kerry’s visit, and the controversy surrounding it began in earnest only then.

On Jan 19, the minister for defence was quoted in press reports as saying there was “no reason to ban JuD” since it was a “charity organisation” only. It was not clear why the defence minister should be injecting himself into the affair since it is not part of his portfolio.

But on Jan 22, the Foreign Office spokesperson confirmed that JuD had been banned, and in response to a question said that it was her understanding that a ban would mean “close scrutiny” of the group’s bank accounts. In fact, for a ban to be compliant with the UN Resolution 1267, it would require a complete freeze of all assets maintained by the group in Pakistan along with assets of all groups known to a front organisation, such as the FiF.

The same day, media reports sourced to unnamed intelligence and interior ministry officials confirmed that a ban had been placed on these groups. But days later, an additional secretary of the interior ministry was reported to have told a Senate committee that JuD was “under observation” and that he was not sure of any ban on it, or on the Haqqani network. It is not clear what keeping a group “under observation” really entails.

Days later, on Jan 25, JuD held a large rally in Karachi at which Hafiz Saeed, the group’s leader, dismissed all talk of a ban on his group, saying the UN curbs are six years old and the words of the Foreign Office spokesperson were being exaggerated in the media.

In early February, two US Congressmen sent a letter to Mr Kerry, urging “travel restrictions, suspending portions of assistance, and sanctioning Pakistani officials that maintain relationships with designated terrorist groups”. The letter indicated an escalation in the pressure being brought to bear on the government to take action in banning the groups listed by the UN, and to act on the ban.

The matter appeared to end with this ambiguity until late in February when the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reviewed Pakistan’s compliance with its AML/CFT (Anti-Money Laundering / Countering Terrorist Financing) framework. The intergovernmental body certified that Pakistan has successfully addressed the strategic deficiencies in its AML/CFT framework and is no longer under monitoring by the group. But the statement added that Pakistan will have to “address the full range of AML/CFT issues identified in its mutual evaluation report, in particular, fully implementing UNSC Resolution 1267”.

The special emphasis placed on “fully implementing UNSC Resolution 1267” means the ambiguity surrounding the banning of JuD and its affiliates, as well as the Haqqani network needs to be cleared up for full compliance with the FATF’s guidelines.

This week, the Pakistani ambassador nodded towards these lingering doubts by saying a ban on the Haqqani network is “in the works”.

For full implementation of the UN Resolution, a ban would need to be followed by an asset freeze. This could be significant given the scale of welfare operations that FiF has begun to undertake around Pakistan, including an ambulance service in three cities.

How does the government intend to fight terrorist groups on its soil if it has such difficulty in even naming them? And failure to name these groups has ramifications for the country’s financial system. The pressure to move on the ban is unlikely to dissipate in days to come. The ambiguity that the government prefers to maintain in dealing with groups and individuals proscribed by the United Nations cannot continue for long.

Published in Dawn March 9th , 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play