Other Paths on Combatting Terror Financing

By Douglas Farah

One of the significant challenges the next administration will face in combating terrorism is the fracturing consensus on international sanctions, as noted by the Washington Post.

There is no doubt the European and U.N. consensus that gave rise to the valuable tools has softened, if not vanished, in recent years. Much of friction has to do with anti-US sentiment, coupled with the inability or unwillingness of the designating parties to use what evidence there is against designated individuals in a judicial process.

The collapse of the sanctions regime would deprive the international community of the easiest way to have a direct and lasting impact on those suspected, at a reasonable level (and that is the tricky part) of funding terrorism. But the initial construct was never intended to be a permanent fix.

Rather, it was designed to give nations and international organizations a breathing space to create a permanent mechanism that was gave more room for due process and other concerns. This did not happen, and the sanctions committees at the UN and elsewhere have become less and less effective. My colleague Victor Comras, quoted in the Post piece, was on one of the most effective committees that was later downgraded because it made too many countries uncomfortable by naming names.

But as the New York Times Magazine piece on the innovative work of Stuart Levey and others at the Treasury Department makes clear, there are other, and perhaps better options. My full blog is here.

TrackBack