Connect with us

South Asia

FATF Greylist: Any Way To Get Out!

Published

on

Money laundering (concealment of illegally gained money then appear legal) and terror financing (activities which provide finance to individual terrorists or militant groups) nowadays is a big and dire problem. Many countries are engulfed in these problems and trying to get rid of it. Many steps have been taken to overcome these problems but all were in vain. When realized that it is a hard nut to crack a force was set up to root out terror financing and money laundering known as Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Financial Action Task Force commonly known as FATF is a global task force formed in 1989. This task force consists of 37 countries, with its headquarter in Paris, France. It is currently under the presidency of Mr. Marshall Billingslea who was appointed on July 1, 2018. Three main FATF observers are Indonesia, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The main purpose of this force is to develop policies to combat money laundering and terror financing.

FATF has provided a series of recommendations which can be followed to stop money laundering and terror financing. Countries are monitored worldwide by the task force to examine if they have acted upon its recommendations to restrain the flow of funds to banned organizations (mafias, terrorist outfits, militant groups etc.). Since this is a serious threat at an international level to the integrity of an international financial system, this task force laid down the foundation of a list of those countries which are affected by or who are involved in money laundering and terror financing is known as greylist.

Pakistan’s history in the FATF greylist

It was 2009 when first time Pakistan was put into the Grey List. At that time Government of Pakistan People Party (PPP) was on the run. Later, the name of Pakistan was excluded from the greylist. After that, Pakistan’s name was again included in greylist in 2012 for the second time. In 2013 government of PPP ended and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) supremo Nawaz Sharif’s Government tenure started. Amid inclusion of Pakistan’s name in the grey list, Chief of Army Staff (COAS) launched an operation on June 15, 2014, against terrorism and militant groups called Operation Zarb-e-Azb. As this operation was on the run to hunt down the terrorists, world’s fourth-deadliest Army Public School (APS) massacre happened after which operation against terrorists intensified more. This operation helped a lot in a decimation of terrorism. When witnessed by FATF watchdogs that terrorism has been reduced to the much extent, name of Pakistan was excluded from the greylist in 2015.

As we know after 2015, terrorism has reduced more as compared to previous years and can be seen that it has almost vanished in Pakistan then what are the reasons that Pakistan’s name is again included in the greylist?

These were the aggressive tweets of Donald Trump in the month of January which pointed out that “the US has foolishly given $33bn to Pakistan to curb terrorism but Pakistan has done nothing in return except lies and deceit. Pakistan has failed to hunt down the terrorist and is providing safe haven to them.”

As a result of Trump’s tweets, a meeting was conducted and a petition was launched in which Pakistan needed three votes to stay out of the greylist and Pakistan did grasp the required number of votes (Turkey, China, and Saudi Arabia) and abstained itself to be placed to the list. After this, Khawaja Asif erupted and tweeted that we have thwarted the US’s agenda to put Pakistan to the list due to which Donald Trump jointly by Modi led Indian Lobby after two or three weeks again pressurized FATF for an unprecedented second discussion on Pakistan. Pakistan again needed three votes to stay out of the list. By then, the US convinced Saudi Arabia to give up its support to Pakistan in return for full membership of FATF. Then there left only two, China and Turkey. China, which is known to be all weather friendly and whose friendship is higher than the mountains, deeper than the ocean informed Pakistan that they are “opting out as they don’t want to lose face by supporting a move that’s doomed to fail” and thus voted against Pakistan. Turkey voted in favor of Pakistan. So, this time only one vote goes in favor of Pakistan and thus Pakistan was officially placed in the greylist on June 28, 2018 regardless of the 26-points action plan formulated by the International Cooperation Review Group (ICRG) of the Asia Pacific Group (APG) which was also submitted to the FATF to choke terror financing, money laundering, ban militant groups including mastermind behind the Mumbai attack Hafiz Saeed-led JuD and its affiliates and totally freeze their assets.

Pakistan is the ninth country to be placed on the Paris based FATF’s grey list while other eight states with strategic deficiencies are Ethiopia, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and Yemen. The plan to put Pakistan into the greylist was jointly moved by the US and three key powers of Europe (the UK, France, and Germany) in February. Finance Minister Dr. Shamshad Akhtar represented Pakistan and argued to remove Pakistan from the greylist but they did not hear a word of her sayings.

Consequences of non-implementation of action plan

As being placed on the greylist. It is now worth exploring that what could this mean for Pakistan. How its placement can affect Pakistan’s efficiency at national and international level.

Mainly Pakistan’s inclusivity in greylist can squeeze its economy and could make it harder for the country to meet its ascending foreign financing needs. This could also lead to a downgrade in Pakistan’s debt rating. Pakistan may also suffer a risk downgrade by multilateral lenders like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank and European Union (EU). Currently, these are the major risks which are expected can be inflicted on Pakistan.

In case of blacklisted

If Pakistan fails to comply with its 26-points action plan then there is no doubt that no one can save Pakistan to be placed on the blacklist of the FATF which means total disaster of the country. Currently, FATF blacklist features Iran and North Korea.

Being blacklisted means direct sanctions on Pakistan’s major international transactions, imports and exports, foreign loans, can distort its international standing, banks can pull out, can be a fall in foreign currency inflow, further fall in Pakistan’s large current account deficit (CAD), Pakistan’s stock market can fall at a greater speed. These are few disturbing factors for Pakistan if it ends up blacklisted.

In case of a blacklist, above cited sanctions might also result up as a chaos at a national level in Pakistan leaving no jobs for the masses of Pakistan, increase in debts, increase in taxes, inflation and would be directly and constantly scrutinized by FATF’s financial watchdogs. All confidential transaction will go through under watchdog’s surveillance.

By putting all these risks aside, the factual evidence, both historic and current, demonstrates the incorrectness of these mentioned assertions. Pakistan was on the FATF grey list from 2012 to 2015. A period in which Pakistan’s imports and exports remained stable and grey listing did not prove to be a significant barrier to trade.

Recently, a delegation of FATF came to Pakistan to review the implementation of the action plan and asked Pakistan to maximize the penalty and imprisonment period for those who proved to be involved in such offenses.

What to do to get out of greylist?

The only way for Pakistan to get out of the grey list is to focus on the 26-point action plan. Implementation of action plan effectively by taking enforcement action against illegal money and value transfer services (MVTS), control on illicit movement of currency, identifying and investigating terrorist financing activity and target designated persons and entities, and persons and entities acting on behalf or acting at the direction of designated persons or entities, prevention of moving funds to designated terrorists including freezing of their assets (both movable and immovable) and demonstrate enforcement against TFS (targeted financial sanctions) violations.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

India’s Unclear Neighbourhood Policy: How to Overcome ?

Published

on

India has witnessed multiple trends with regards to its relations with its neighbours at a time vaccine diplomacy is gaining prominence and Beijing increasing the pace towards becoming an Asian superpower, whereby making these reasons valid for New Delhi to have a clear foreign policy with respect to its neighbourhood.

Introduction

The Covid Pandemic has led to increased uncertainty in the global order where it comes to power dynamics, role of international organisations. New Delhi has tried to leave no stone unturned when it comes to dealing with its immediate neighbours.  It has distributed medical aid and vaccines to smaller countries to enhance its image abroad at a time it has witnessed conflicts with China and a change in government in Myanmar. These developments make it imperative for New Delhi to increase its focus on regionalism and further international engagement where this opportunity could be used tactically amidst a pandemic by using economic and healthcare aid.

According to Dr. Arvind Gupta, New Delhi has to deal with threats coming from multiple fronts and different tactics where it is essential for New Delhi to save energy using soft means rather than coercive measures.. India under Vaccine Maitri has supplied many of COVAXIN doses to Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka where many have appreciated this move. The urgency of ensuring humanitarian aid during these periods of unprecedented uncertainty are essential in PM Modi’s Security and Growth For All ( SAGAR) initiative, which focusses on initiating inclusive growth as well as cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region.

This pandemic witnessed various threats coming in India’s neighbourhood through multiple dimensions which include maritime, land, cyber as well as air threats where adversaries are using these to put pressure on New Delhi to settle land as well as marine disputes as per their terms.  These encirclement strategies have made it necessary for India to open up various options such as holding maritime joint exercises with like-minded countries, developing partnerships, providing economic as well as healthcare support to weaker countries plus having a clear insight about changing global dynamics and acting as per them.

This piece will discuss about various changing tactics, pros and cons which India has with respect to developing its national security vis-à-vis its neighbourhood, why should it prioritise its neighbourhood at the first place?

Background

India’s Neighbourhood is filled with many complexities and a lot of suspicion amongst countries, some viewing India because of its size and geography plus economic clout as a bully where it is wanting to dominate in the region putting others aside. This led to New Delhi play an increased role in nudging ties first with its neighbours with whom it had multiple conflicts as well as misunderstandings leading to the latter viewing Beijing as a good alternative in order to keep India under check.

Ever since PM Modi has taken charge at 7 RCR, India’s Neighbourhood First Policy has been followed increasingly to develop relations, to enhance understandings and ensure mutual cooperation as well as benefit with its neighbours. The relations with Islamabad have not seen so much improvement as compared to other leaders in the past. Even though former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was invited for PM Modi’s 1st Swearing In ceremony in 2014, terrorist activities have never stopped which could be seen through Pathankot, Uri and Pulwama terror attacks which killed many of the Indian soldiers. Even though surgical strikes were conducted on terror camps in retaliation to these bombardments, Islamabad has not changed its heart at all about its security or regional demands. New strategies and friendships are being developed where Beijing has played a major role in controlling power dynamics.

The Belt and Road initiative, first time mentioned during President Xi’s 2013 speech in Kazakhstan, then officially in 2015,  lays emphasis of achieving a Chinese Dream of bringing countries under one umbrella, ensuring their security, providing them with infrastructure projects such as ports, railways, pipelines, highways etc. The main bottleneck is the China Pakistan Economic Corridor when it comes to India’s security threats, passing through disputed boundaries of Gilgit and Baltistan in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir till Gwadar. Other projects have been initiated in Chittagong, Hambantota, Gwadar , Kyapkyou. These projects form a String Of Pearls in the Indo Pacific where New Delhi is being balanced against through economic plus development incentives being given to the member countries under the project. That’s why in the recent past, New Delhi is asserting its influence in the region, looking at new dimensional threats where Beijing’s threats in the maritime domain in the islands in East as well as South China seas are not being seen favourably in many countries such as ASEAN, US, Australia and Japan which is giving India an opportunity to look towards countries with a common threat. Amidst this great power struggle between Washington and Beijing, New Delhi is stuck between a rock and hard place i.e., having a clear and strong foreign policy with its neighbours.

In this region, India has a sole threat which is mainly Beijing where the latter has achieved prowess technologically and militarily where New Delhi lags behind the latter twenty fold. So, there is a need for improvising military technology, increase economic activities with countries, reduce dependence on foreign aid, ensure self-reliance.

Situation

South Asia is backward when it comes to economic development, human development and is a home to majority of the world’s population which lives below poverty line. The colonial rule has left a never-ending impact on divisions based on communal, linguistic and ethnic grounds. Even, in terms of infrastructure and connectivity, New Delhi lags behind Beijing significantly in the neighbourhood because the latter is at an edge when it comes to bringing countries under the same umbrella. Due to these, many initiatives have been taken up by New Delhi on developing infrastructure, providing humanitarian aid to needy countries.

There have been numerous efforts made by India with respect to reaching out to the Neighbours in 2020 through setting up of the SAARC Covid Fund where many Neighbourhood countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka gave contributions to ensure cooperation, joint scientific research, sharing information, healthcare kits where the countries contributed USD $ 18 million jointly towards this fund where New Delhi made an initial offer of USD $ 10 million.

New Delhi has even mustered ties with the Association of Southeast Asian countries during the pandemic under its Act East Policy where proper connectivity through the Northeast could be useful in easing movement of goods but currently, the infrastructure in Northeast needs more improvement where issues such as unemployment, poor connectivity are prevalent whereby disconnecting it from rest of the other states. This region could play an important role in linking Bangladesh, Myanmar to New Delhi along with the proposed India-Thailand –Myanmar Trilateral Corridor. Focus has also been laid to develop inland waterways, rail links and pipelines to ease connections between countries, making trade free and more efficient.

India is focussing on developing the Sittwe and Paletwa ports in Myanmar under the Kaladan Development Corridor, at the cost of INR 517.9 Crore in order to provide an alternative e route beneficial for the Northeast for getting shipping access

Summing Up

 These above developments and power display by a strong adversary, give good reasons for New Delhi to adopt collective security mechanisms through QUAD, SIMBEX and JIMEX with a common perception of having safe and open waters through abiding to the UNCLOS which China isn’t showing too much interest in, seen through surveillance units, artificial islands being set up on disputed territories which countries likewise India are facing in context to territorial sovereignty and integrity. These developments make it important for India to look at strategic threats by coming together with countries based on similar interest’s vis-à-vis Chinese threat.

There is a need for India to develop and harness its strength through connectivity and its self reliance initiative ( Aatmanirbharta ) so that there is no dependence on any foreign power at times of need . Proper coordination between policy makers and government officials could make decision making even easier, which is not there completely because of ideological differences, different ideas which makes it important for the political leadership to coordinate with the military jointly during times of threats on borders. Self-reliance could only come through preparedness and strategy.

Continue Reading

South Asia

India is in big trouble as UK stands for Kashmiris

Published

on

 A London-based law firm has filed an application with British police seeking the arrest of India’s army chief and a senior Indian government official over their alleged roles in war crimes in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Law firm Stoke White said it submitted extensive evidence to the Metropolitan Police’s War Crimes Unit on Tuesday, documenting how Indian forces headed by General Manoj Mukund Naravane and Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah were responsible for the torture, kidnapping and killing of activists, journalists and civilians – particularly Muslim – in the region.

“There is strong reason to believe that Indian authorities are conducting war crimes and other violence against civilians in Jammu and Kashmir,” the report states, referring to the territory in the Himalayan region.

Based on more than 2,000 testimonies taken between 2020 and 2021, the report also accused eight unnamed senior Indian military officials of direct involvement in war crimes and torture in Kashmir.

The law firm’s investigation suggested that the abuse has worsened during the coronavirus pandemic. It also included details about the arrest of Khurram Parvez, the region’s most prominent rights activist, by India’s counterterrorism authorities last year.

“This report is dedicated to the families who have lost loved ones without a trace, and who experience daily threats when trying to attain justice,” Khalil Dewan, author of the report and head of the SWI unit, said in a statement.

“The time has now come for victims to seek justice through other avenues, via a firmer application of international law.”

The request to London police was made under the principle of “universal jurisdiction”, which gives countries the authority to prosecute individuals accused of crimes against humanity committed anywhere in the world.

The international law firm in London said it believes its application is the first time that legal action has been initiated abroad against Indian authorities over alleged war crimes in Kashmir.

Hakan Camuz, director of international law at Stoke White, said he hoped the report would convince British police to open an investigation and ultimately arrest the officials when they set foot in the UK.

Some of the Indian officials have financial assets and other links to Britain.

“We are asking the UK government to do their duty and investigate and arrest them for what they did based on the evidence we supplied to them. We want them to be held accountable,” Camuz said.

The police application was made on behalf of the family of Pakistani prisoner Zia Mustafa, who, Camuz said, was the victim of extrajudicial killing by Indian authorities in 2021, and on behalf of human rights campaigner Muhammad Ahsan Untoo, who was allegedly tortured before his arrest last week.

Tens of thousands of civilians, rebels and government forces have been killed in the past two decades in Kashmir, which is divided between India and Pakistan and claimed by both in its entirety.

Muslim Kashmiris mostly support rebels who want to unite the region, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

Kashmiris and international rights groups have long accused Indian troops of carrying out systematic abuse and arrests of those who oppose rule from New Delhi.

Rights groups have also criticized the conduct of armed groups, accusing them of carrying out human rights violations against civilians.

In 2018, the United Nations human rights chief called for an independent international investigation into reports of rights violations in Kashmir, alleging “chronic impunity for violations committed by security forces”.

India’s government has denied the alleged rights violations and maintains such claims are separatist propaganda meant to demonize Indian troops in the region. It seems, India is in big trouble and may not be able to escape this time. A tough time for Modi-led extremist government and his discriminatory policies. The world opinion about India has been changed completely, and it has been realized that there is no longer a democratic and secular India. India has been hijacked by extremist political parties and heading toward further bias policies. Minorities may suffer further, unless the world exert pressure to rectify the deteriorating human rights records in India.

Continue Reading

South Asia

S. Jaishankar’s ‘The India Way’, Is it a new vision of foreign policy?

Published

on

S. Jaishankar has had an illustrious Foreign Service career holding some of the highest and most prestigious positions such as ambassador to China and the US and as foreign secretary of India. Since 2019 he has served as India’s foreign minister. S. Jaishankar also has a Ph.D. in international relations from JNU and his academic background is reflected in this book.

His main argument is simplistic, yet the issues involved are complex. Jaishankar argues that the world is changing fundamentally, and the international environment is experiencing major shifts in power as well as processes. China is rising and western hegemony is declining. We are moving away from a unipolar system dominated by the US to a multipolar system. Globalization is waning and nationalism and polarization is on the rise (p. 29). The old order is going away but we cannot yet glimpse what the future will look like. This is the uncertain world that Dr. Jaishankar sees.

Dr. Jaishankar also argues that India too has changed, it is more capable and more assertive. The liberalization program that began in 1991 has made the Indian economy vibrant and globally competitive and it is well on track to becoming the third biggest economy in the world, after China and the US.  The war of 1971 that liberated Bangladesh, the liberalization of the economy after 1991, the nuclear tests in 1998 and the nuclear understanding with the US in 2005, Jaishankar argues are landmarks in India’s strategic evolution (p. 4). So given that both India and the system have changed, Jaishankar concludes, so should India’s foreign policy.

But his prescription for India’s foreign policy, in the grand scheme of things, is the same as before – India should remain nonaligned and not join the US in its efforts to contain China. India will try to play with both sides it seems in order to exploit the superpowers and maximize its own interests (p. 9). But he fails to highlight how India can find common ground with China other than to say the two nations must resolve things diplomatically. He also seems to think that the US has infinite tolerance for India’s coyness. In his imagination the US will keep making concessions and India will keep playing hard to get.

Jaishankar has a profound contradiction in his thinking. He argues that the future will be determined by what happens between the US and China. In a way he is postulating a bipolar future to global politics. But he then claims that the world is becoming multipolar and this he claims will increase the contests for regional hegemony. The world cannot be both bipolar and multipolar at the same time.

There is also a blind spot in Jaishankar’s book.  He is apparently unaware of the rise of Hindu nationalism and the demand for a Hindu state that is agitating and polarizing India’s domestic politics. The systematic marginalization and oppression of Muslim minorities at home and the growing awareness overseas of the dangers of Hindutva extremism do not exist in the world that he lives in. He misses all this even as he goes on to invoke the Mahabharata and argue how Krishna’s wisdom and the not so ethical choices during the war between Pandavas and Kauravas should be a guide for how India deals with this uncertain world – by balancing ethics with realism (p. 63). Methinks his little digression in discussing the ancient Hindu epic is more to signal his ideological predilections than to add any insights to understanding the world or India’s place in it.  

One aspect of his work that I found interesting is his awareness of the importance of democracy and pluralism. He states that India’s democracy garners respect and gives India a greater opportunity to be liked and admired by other nations in the world (p. 8). Yet recently when he was asked about the decline of India’s democratic credentials, his response was very defensive, and he showed visible signs of irritation. It is possible that he realizes India is losing ground internationally but is unwilling to acknowledge that his political party is responsible for the deterioration of India’s democracy.

This is also apparent when he talks about the importance of India improving its relations with its immediate neighbors. He calls the strategy as neighborhood first approach (pp. 9-10). What he does not explain is how an Islamophobic India will maintain good relations with Muslim majority neighbors like Bangladesh, Maldives, and Pakistan.

The book is interesting, it has its limitations and both, what is addressed and what is left out, are clearly political choices and provide insights into how New Delhi thinks about foreign policy. So, coming to the question with which we started, does India have a new foreign policy vision? The answer is no. Dr. Jaishankar is right, there is indeed an India way, but it is the same old way, and it entails remaining nonaligned with some minor attitudinal adjustments.  

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Africa Today26 mins ago

Bringing dry land in the Sahel back to life

Millions of hectares of farmland are lost to the desert each year in Africa’s Sahel region, but the UN Food...

Middle East2 hours ago

“Kurdish Spring”: drawing to a close?

For decades, the Kurdish problem was overshadowed by the Palestinian one, occasionally popping up in international media reports following the...

Central Asia4 hours ago

Great powers rivalry in Central Asia: New strategy, old game

In international politics, interstate rivalry involves conflicting relations between two international rivalries that are nation states. A fundamental feature of...

Environment10 hours ago

How UNEP is helping education systems go green

The world is facing a three-pronged environmental crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste. To...

Africa Today16 hours ago

South Africa’s Covid-19 Response Gets a $750 Million Boost

The World Bank Group Board of Executive Directors today approved South Africa’s request for a $750 million development policy loan...

Human Rights18 hours ago

Urgent action needed to protect Vietnamese workers trafficked to Serbia

Urgent action is required to assist and protect some 400 Vietnamese migrant workers who were allegedly trafficked to Serbia, experts...

Green Planet20 hours ago

Introducing India’s first ever diving grant

Mumbai-based Vidhi Bubna, the founder of ‘Coral Warriors’, India’s first ever diving grant, is a keen humanitarian and is passionate...

Trending