IMF or “International Terror Fund”? A Grim Joke with Global Consequences

Once hailed as the watchdog of global economic stability, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is now facing rising scrutiny—not just for its economic policies, but for what many see as a reckless and dangerous disregard for global security. With its recent disbursement of a $1 billion loan tranche to Pakistan—just days after a deadly terror attack in Indian Kashmir—the IMF has drawn fierce criticism, especially from India, for what appears to be blind financial backing of a state with a notorious track record of supporting extremist elements.

It’s becoming hard to ignore the bitter irony: a body formed to prevent economic crises now finds itself bankrolling instability. The joke making rounds in diplomatic circles? IMF doesn’t stand for “International Monetary Fund” anymore—it’s the “International Terror Fund.”

India Abstains, IMF Looks the Other Way

On May 9, 2025, the IMF approved a $1.4 billion loan for Pakistan under the guise of “climate resilience” and also released an additional $1 billion under an ongoing stabilization program. This came in the immediate aftermath of yet another militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir—an act India links to Pakistan-backed groups.

India, understandably, abstained from voting in the IMF Executive Board meeting, a rare and bold diplomatic signal. The concern wasn’t economic—it was moral and geopolitical. India warned that international funds, instead of reaching the Pakistani public, risk being diverted into the hands of groups and agendas hostile to peace in South Asia.

A Long History of Funding Instability

This is not Pakistan’s first IMF bailout. In fact, it’s the 24th. Over the past three decades, the country has borrowed nearly $29 billion from the IMF—while repaying more than $21 billion, including $3.5 billion in interest. But what does Pakistan have to show for it?

Despite a steady stream of IMF packages, the country teeters on the edge of economic collapse. Inflation soars. Corruption is rampant. Public infrastructure crumbles. And yet, its military capabilities and proxy war networks seem oddly well-funded. From the safe havens given to UN-designated terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar, to state complicity in training and sheltering insurgents, there’s a troubling pattern that money meant for “reform” may be feeding the machinery of extremism.

The Hypocrisy of Soft Oversight

The IMF justifies these disbursements by pointing to policy reforms and climate resilience measures. But where’s the follow-up? Where’s the accountability?

India has repeatedly urged the IMF to ensure its funds aren’t funneled into Pakistan’s defense budget or used to repay strategic debts to China. Yet the IMF continues its monetary diplomacy with blinders on. This isn’t just financial negligence—it’s geopolitical recklessness.

In simpler terms: When Pakistan receives loans and continues harboring or protecting terrorists, the IMF is essentially laundering legitimacy for terror-sponsoring states under the banner of economic aid.

Aiding Peace or Funding War?

The question the world needs to ask is this: What are the IMF’s real priorities? If it’s economic stabilization, why does Pakistan remain perennially unstable despite 70+ years of international aid? And if terrorism continues to thrive within its borders, shouldn’t there be non-negotiable conditions—especially when the same money might be used to threaten neighboring democracies?

This isn’t just India’s concern. Global terrorism is a transnational threat. When international institutions like the IMF become indifferent to where their money ends up, they stop being neutral and start being complicit.

The Way Forward: Reform or Irrelevance

It’s time for the IMF to reform its loan disbursement frameworks:

• Mandatory security audits should accompany any aid to high-risk nations.
• Third-party monitoring must ensure funds are used for development, not defense or ideological extremism.
• Zero-tolerance for any nation found harboring internationally recognized terrorists.

Failing this, the IMF may continue to be perceived not as a fund for monetary reform—but as a financial enabler of instability, chaos, and terror.

Conclusion: The Joke Isn’t Funny Anymore

What began as diplomatic sarcasm—calling IMF the “International Terror Fund”—now feels alarmingly accurate. The world deserves better than a global financial system that’s blind to bloodshed and deaf to diplomacy.

Unless the IMF urgently course-corrects, it risks losing not just credibility—but its very purpose. The world cannot afford to watch while its economic institutions are hijacked to fund war by other means.