US special envoy Richard Holbrooke’s statement in Brussels that the Taliban receive more money from their sympathisers in the Gulf countries than they obtain from the illegal narcotics trade in Afghanistan deserves to be taken note of. As we wrote in in our issue of June 29, 'misguided concepts of philanthropy' contribute in no small measure to the Taliban’s coffers. Full Story »
Posted by Jane C Wylen
The article mentions several terms, like hundi, ban-king channel, madressah. It is up to the reader to figure out these terms, e.g. by reading a previous, referenced article. Except for Richard Holbrooke's statement, facts in the article are difficult to verify, and therefore seems more like an opinion.
Transfers are thus ‘safe’ only when they are made through nonbanking channels like hundi, an informal means of transferring funds. Tackling this is a ticklish job, because not all transfers made by these means necessarily go to the Taliban.
‘Hundi’ seems to be a technical term for non-banking money transfers, probably from person to person.
This article takes a quote from Richard Holbrook to explain how philantrophic money donations can and do end up in the hands of Taliban. This funding source supposedly is larger than proceedings from narcotics production.