Connect with us

Intelligence

Explainer: The fight against money laundering and terrorist financing

Published

on

The European Commission put forward a series of measures designed to further strengthen the EU’s framework to fight against money laundering and terrorist financing:

  • An Action Plan for a Comprehensive EU policy on Preventing Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing
  • A refined and more transparent methodology to identify high-risk third countries
  • An updated list of high-risk third countries

To ensure inclusive discussions on the development of these policies, the Commission launched a public consultation today on the Action Plan. Authorities, stakeholders and citizens will have until 29 July to provide their feedback.

Action Plan for a Comprehensive EU policy on Preventing Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing

Why is the Commission adopting this Action Plan now?

While current EU rules are far-reaching, and even go beyond international standards, they are not applied in a fully coherent manner across the EU. This leads to fragmentation between Member States. The challenge lies not only with specific pieces of legislation but with how these rules are implemented effectively across the EU. There is a clear need to tackle this lack of coherence and ensure a more harmonised implementation of the rules across the EU.The recent increase in criminal activities in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic is a reminder that criminals will exploit all possible avenues to pursue their illicit activities to the detriment of society. The EU needs to be equally determined in ensuring that they do not benefit from the proceeds of these crimes.

In July 2019, the Commission adopted an Anti-Money Laundering Communication, which highlighted a number of measures that could be taken to remedy the weaknesses in the EU’s current anti-money laundering rules.

Following this, the European Parliament and the Council invited the Commission to investigate what steps could be taken to achieve a more harmonised set of rules across the EU, including better supervision at an EU level and improved coordination among Member States’ Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs).

Today’s Action Plan is the Commission’s reply to these calls and is a first step towards a new, comprehensive framework to fight money laundering and terrorist financing in the EU.

How is the EU going to stop money laundering and terrorist financing?

Money laundering is a difficult crime to detect. Its consequences can have a severe impact on the EU’s economy and on its financial system. Therefore, the EU needs to have a multi-faceted approach to properly tackle money laundering and terrorist financing. Action is needed on several levels.

This is why the Commission has today put forward a series of measures aimed at closing any loopholes or weak links in the EU’s anti-money laundering rules.

Today’s Action Plan is built on six pillars, each of which is aimed at improving the EU’s overall fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as strengthening the EU’s global role in this area. When combined, these six pillars will ensure that EU rules are more harmonised and therefore more effective. The rules will be better supervised and there will be better coordination between Member States’ authorities.

The six pillars are as follows:

Effective application of EU rules: the Commission will continue to monitor closely the implementation of EU rules by Member States to ensure that the national rules are in line with the highest possible standards. In parallel, today’s Action Plan encourages the European Banking Authority (EBA) to make full use of its new powers to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing.

A single EU rulebook: while current EU rules are far-reaching and effective, Member States tend to apply them in a wide variety of different manners. Diverging interpretations of the rules therefore lead to loopholes in our system, which can be exploited by criminals. To combat this, the Commission will propose a more harmonised set of rules in the first quarter of 2021.

EU-level supervision: currently it is up to each Member State to individually supervise EU rules in this area and as a result, gaps can develop in how the rules are supervised. In the first quarter of 2021, the Commission will propose to set up an EU-level supervisor.

A coordination and support mechanism for Member States’ Financial Intelligence Units:Financial Intelligence Units in Member States play a critical role in identifying transactions and activities that could be linked to criminal activities. In the first quarter of 2021, the Commission will propose to establish an EU mechanism to help further coordinate and support the work of these units.

Enforcing EU-level criminal law provisions and information exchange: Judicial and police cooperation, on the basis of EU instruments and institutional arrangements, is essential to ensure the proper exchange of information.The private sector can also play a role in fighting money laundering and terrorist financing. The Commission will issue guidance on the role of public-private partnerships to clarify and enhance data sharing.

The EU’s global role: the EU is actively involved within the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and on the world stage in shaping international standards in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. We are determined to step up our efforts so that we act as a single global actor in this area. In particular, the EU will adjust its approach to third countries with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing regimes that pose significant threats to our Single Market. The new methodology issued alongside this Action Plan today provides the EU with the necessary tools to do so. Pending the entry into force of this revised methodology, today’s updated EU list ensures better alignment with the latest FATF (Financial Action Task Force) list.

What about the effective implementation of current EU rules?

The Commission closely monitors the implementation of all EU rules in its Member States. For example, infringement proceedings were opened in February 2020 against all those Member States that failed to notify transposition of the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive.

In parallel, we continue to verify that Member States have fully and correctly transposed the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive. The Commission has also started checking how Member States are implementing this Directive in practice. This is done in the context of the European Semester cycle. The Commission has also contracted a study by the Council of Europe, which has extensive experience in such checks. This study will feed into the report on effectiveness that the Commission is required to submit by 2022 under the Anti-Money Laundering Directive.

The Commission expects the European Banking Authority (EBA) to use its new powers to improve the effectiveness of supervisory action in the financial sector by conducting on-site examinations to assess AML framework across the EU.

Will this Action Plan lead to a new Regulation? What rules will be harmonised in the future?

This will be subject to a thorough analysis to ensure that we reach as high a level of harmonisation as possible. Current EU rules do function but Member States tend to apply them in a wide variety of different manners. Diverging interpretations of EU law therefore lead to loopholes in our system, which can be exploited by criminals. To combat this, the Commission will propose a more harmonised set of rules in the first quarter of 2021.

A number of areas where divergence should be minimised were highlighted, namely the list of obliged entities, customer due diligence requirements, internal controls, and reporting obligations.

Is current supervision sufficient or should an Agency at EU level be created?

Following recent EU reforms, the European Banking Authority (EBA) has been empowered to act quickly and decisively in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. It is now equipped with concrete tools to ensure the exchange of information between anti-money laundering and financial supervisors.

The latest amendments of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive also give national authorities more powers to act where banks, or financial and non-financial entities, breach their anti-money laundering obligations. These amendments also improve the exchange of information between authorities.

Nevertheless, as outlined in a Commission Report on the assessment of recent alleged money laundering cases, some structural weaknesses in the EU’s anti-money laundering framework persist, even after all the new measures have been fully implemented.

These weaknesses may endanger the security and reputation of the EU’s financial system. Therefore, it is essential that the EU’s anti-money laundering rules can also be supervised at an EU level.

The role and scope of this EU-level supervision – as well as the supervisory body that should be tasked with carrying out this role – will be proposed following a thorough assessment of all options, also based on the feedback we will receive in the open public consultation launched today.

The EU-level supervisor will be established as part of a comprehensive new policy to fight money laundering and terrorist financing. The Commission has set the political objective to achieve this within this mandate, and we count on the support of the European Parliament and the Council to ensure that the legislative work will progress as swiftly as possible.

Will all operators be supervised by this EU-level supervisor?

This matter will be thoroughly analysed. As the Action Plan notes, there are several options regarding the scope of EU-level supervision, ranging from a narrow to a broad scope. Each of these options has pros and cons, and the Commission’s proposal will be based on a careful assessment of all options, also based on the feedback we will receive in the open public consultation launched today, ensuring that the future supervisory framework is of the highest quality and leaves no weak links nor loopholes in the system.

What about the national Financial Intelligence Units (FIU)?

Financial Intelligence Units(FIUs)in Member States play an important role in identifying transactions and activities that could be linked to criminal activities. However, several technical difficulties in the functioning of the secure communication channels (FIU.net) have created difficulties.

Several Financial Intelligence Units fail to comply with their obligation to exchange information with other Financial Intelligence Units. In addition, some Financial Intelligence Units have not managed to engage in a meaningful dialogue by giving quality feedback to private entities, as required by the Anti-Money laundering Directive. The Action Plan sets the ground for the creation of an EU support and coordination mechanism for these Units.

The aim of this mechanism is to remedy the weaknesses that were identified in how Financial Intelligence Units work. This support and coordination mechanism would support cross-border cooperation and analysis. It would also streamline how information is exchanged between Member States’ FIUs and the FIUs of third countries. Finally, this support mechanism will operate as the host and as a secure communication channel for the FIU.net.

The private sector can play a critical role in fighting money laundering and terrorist financing. What will the Commission do to support its involvement?

Private operators are the gatekeepers of our financial system and our economy. They are the first ones to detect whether a transaction or activity might be suspicious. With their day-to-day experience, they can certainly contribute to fighting money launderers and those who fund terrorist activities.

The Commission fully recognises the benefits of the public and the private sector working together in this area. At the same time, it is important that these partnerships develop in a sound manner. To this end, the Commission will issue guidance, including sharing of good practices, and will consider whether to request the opinion of the European Data Protection Board in this work.

Will the list of private operators subject to anti-money laundering/terrorist financing requirements be expanded?

We will analyse whether the current scope of operators subject to these rules is adequate. Recent reviews of international standards suggest that, as a minimum, virtual asset service providers should be requested to comply withthe relevant rules.

This is also an area where we can learn from Member States’ experiences. Some countries have expanded the list of professionals subject to these rules to include, for example, crowdfunding platforms. All these examples should be analysed, also based on the feedback we will receive in the open public consultation launched today, to arrive at a harmonised list of obliged entities.

New methodology for identifying high-risk third countries

Why do you need a new methodology to identify high-risk third countries?

Identifying and tackling money-laundering activities is a moving target. Criminal techniques develop fast and take into account the latest technological developments. The new methodology aims at tackling these issues and updating our capacity to successfully identify high-risk third countries with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing regimes that pose significant threats to our Single Market.

In addition, under the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD), the Commission has a legal obligation to identify high-risk third countries with strategic deficiencies in their legal systems regarding money laundering and terrorist financing. This is to ensure that enhanced due diligence measures are applied, for example, by relevant EU businesses when carrying out financial transactions involving those third countries.

The 5th AMLD, adopted in July 2018, further strengthened the criteria for the identification of high-risk third countries, going beyond the criteria of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), in particular as regards beneficial ownership information.

The Council objected to the list presented by the Commission on 13 February 2019. The Commission has worked within that legal framework to address concerns expressed by the Council as regards the transparency of the process and the need to incentivise third countries and respect their right to be heard.

The key new elements of today’s refined methodology for identifying high-risk third countries concern: (i) the interaction between the EU and FATF listing process; (ii) an enhanced engagement with third countries subject to the autonomous assessment; and (iii) reinforced consultation of Member States experts. The European Parliament and the Council will have access to all relevant information at the different stages of the procedures, subject to appropriate handling requirements.

What are the criteria used for listing a third country at EU level?

The 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) sets out the technical criteria for identifying high-risk third countries. These requirements have been revised by the 5th Anti Money Laundering Directive in order to provide even more robust criteria.

Under the AMLD, the Commission takes into account strategic deficiencies of those countries, in particular in relation to the legal and institutional AML/CFT (anti-money laundering / countering the financing of terrorism) framework such as:

o   criminalisation of money laundering and terrorist financing,

o   customer due diligence and record keeping requirements,

o   reporting of suspicious transactions,

o   the availability and exchange of information on beneficial ownership of legal persons and legal arrangements;

o   the powers and procedures of competent authorities;

o   their practice in international cooperation;

o   the existence of dissuasive, proportionate and effective sanctions.

As a general requirement, the effectiveness in applying those AML/CFT safeguards will be considered. When carrying out its assessment, the Commission considers relevant evaluations, assessments or reports drawn up by relevant international organisations and standard setters – in particular those issued by FATF – as well as other information sources.

Once the new methodology is in place, who will be consulted?

Member State experts will be consulted at every stage of the process regarding the assessments of third country regimes, the definition of mitigating measures, third countries’ implementation of “EU Benchmarks” and the preparation of the Delegated Regulation. This consultation will include specific Member State competent authorities (law enforcement, intelligence services, Financial Intelligence Units). The European Parliament will be fully involved in those consultations.

The Commission is committed to ensuring appropriate reporting to the European Parliament. Both the European Parliament and the Council will have access to all relevant information at the different stages of the procedures, subject to appropriate handling requirements.

How often will the list be updated?

The EU list will be updated one month following the publication of an updated FATF list, which the Commission considers as a baseline. In addition, the Commission will identify further third countries based on its own autonomous assessment, after having engaged with those countries as set out in the refined methodology published today. The Commission will immediately identify those countries that refuse to take commitments to address their strategic deficiencies (“non-cooperative jurisdictions”) or those third countries that have an overriding level of risk. Third countries taking commitments to address concerns, as part of the Commission’s autonomous assessment, will benefit from a 12-month observation period. In case they do not implement those commitments within the agreed period, the Commission will proceed with a listing.

How does the FATF lists interact with the EU list?

Third countries listed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) will in principle also be listed by the EU. For countries de-listed by FATF, the Commission will assess whether the reasoning for de-listing is also sufficiently comprehensive from the EU’s point of view.

With regard to EU Accession countries, the Commission may develop other mitigating measures in the context of the accession negotiations that address the identified strategic deficiencies. Accession countries could take commitments that go beyond the FATF action plans. This will be closely monitored by the Commission. This option does not apply to third countries that are not in the process of acceding to the EU.

In specific circumstances – for example, if a third country has strategic deficiencies in its anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing regime that pose a significant threat to the EU or if certain requirements related to beneficial ownership transparency are in question – certain EU requirements can “top up” the existing FATF Action Plan.

If a third country presents a risk and is not yet subject to the FATF procedure, the Commission or Member States should flag this in FATF before considering adding this country to the EU’s autonomous list.

What is the link between the AML listing process and the EU’s list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions?

The EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions and the EU’s AML lists may overlap on some of the countries they feature, but they have different objectives, criteria, compilation processes and consequences. The EU’s tax list is a Council-led process, whereas the EU’s anti-money laundering (AML) list is established by the Commission based on EU anti-money laundering rules. The high-risk third country (AML) list aims to address risks to the EU’s financial system caused by third countries with deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes. On the basis of this list, banks must apply higher due diligence controls to financial flows involving those high risk third countries. The anti-money laundering list is compiled by the Commission. On the other hand, the common EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions addresses the external risks to Member States’ tax bases, posed by third countries that do not comply with international tax good governance standards. It is managed directly by the Member States, through the Code of Conduct Group, with the support of the Commission. The Code of Conduct Group decides which jurisdictions should be listed and makes a recommendation to EU Finance Ministers, who take the final decision. Nonetheless, the two lists complement each other in ensuring a double protection for the Single Market from external risks.

Why does the Commission not propose a “grey list” of countries being assessed?

Unlike the EU’s list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions, the Anti-Money Laundering Directive only provides for one single list of “high risk third countries” based on identification of strategic deficiencies in the anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing regime in a given country. It does not provide for a “black list” or “grey list.” As a result, the Commission considers that such a “grey list” cannot be issued, as no firm conclusion would be reached on the existence of strategic deficiencies. The Commission will, however, ensure full transparency with the European Parliament and Council throughout the process of engaging, in cooperation with the European External Action Service, with third countries, so that the co-legislators can monitor progress in the implementation of this new methodology, including in the drafting of EU benchmarks and assessing their implementation within the given timeframe.

New EU list of high-risk third countries

Why is the Commission presenting a new list of high-risk third countries?

Criminals and terrorists are not sitting back during the Coronavirus pandemic. Europol has provided a recent assessment of new threats posed by criminal groups trying to take advantage of the pandemic.

The EU is committed to protecting the integrity of its financial system and preventing financial flows involving countries with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing regimes. In line with the risk-based approach, banks and other obliged entities must apply enhanced due diligence in case of financial flows to/from high-risk third countries identified in the EU list.

As defined under the 4th and 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directives, the EU has to establish a list of high-risk third countries, to make sure that the EU’s financial system is equipped to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing.

The Commission issued the first such list in 2016, and updated it subsequently over the past years. Since the adoption of the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, the criteria by which a third country is assessed have been extended substantially, thereby requiring the Commission to carry out an autonomous assessment. This required an adaptation of the listing process based on a refined methodology. This also follows calls from the European Parliament to have an autonomous list. Today, the Commission has amended the list of high-risk third countries, via a Delegated Act, in order for it to be better aligned with the lists published by FATF. This update is necessary since the EU list has not reflected the latest FATF lists adopted since October 2018. Further updates will take place once the Commission has engaged with third countries subject to the EU’s autonomous assessments, according to the refined methodology published today.Given the Coronavirus crisis, the date of application of today’s Regulation listing third countries – and therefore applying new protective measures – only applies as of 1 October 2020. This is to ensure that all stakeholders have time to prepare appropriately. The delisting of countries, however, is not affected by this and will enter into force 20 days after publication in the Official Journal.

What countries have been added to the EU list?

The Commission took into account the latest lists issued by FATF. As a consequence, the Commission has listed 12 new countries on the EU list. Based on the FATF “Compliance documents”, the Commission considers that The Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, Cambodia, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Panama and Zimbabwe meet the criteria set out in article 9(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/849. Those countries have expressed a high-level political commitment to implement an action plan agreed with FATF to address their strategic deficiencies. We welcome those commitments and invite those jurisdictions to implement them swiftly.Given the Coronavirus crisis, the date of application of today’s Regulation listing third countries – and therefore applying new protective measures – only applies as of 1 October 2020.

What countries have been removed from the EU list?

Following progress made, the Commission has removed 6 countries from the EU list. The Commission’s review concluded that Bosnia-Herzegovina, Guyana, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia addressed their strategic deficiencies and should therefore be delisted.This decision will enter into force 20 days after publication in the Official Journal.

What is the situation of other countries recently delisted by FATF?

For those countries delisted by FATF since the adoption of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675, the assessment by the Commission is still ongoing (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu).

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, the available information and the security situation in the countries did not allow the Commission to conclude, at this stage, whether they effectively addressed their strategic deficiencies. This is due in particular to the fact that those countries were delisted by FATF based on a former procedure that did not assess the effective application of AML/CFT measures. Effective application of AML/CFT measures is a criteria explicitly included in the requirements set out in the AML Directive.

Regarding Vanuatu and Trinidad and Tobago, the available information did not allow the Commission to conclude, at this stage, whether they addressed their strategic deficiencies, notably as regards the transparency of beneficial ownership, which is a specific requirement set in the AML Directive.

The Commission will review the anti-money laundering regime of those countries as a matter of priority and will engage with them as appropriate, based on the refined methodology.

What is the situation of Albania with regard to its AML/CFT regime?

The assessment of high-risk third countries is applicable to enlargement countries – which can be listed in case strategic deficiencies are identified. As set out in the methodology, the Commission can also address these issues in the framework of the accession process where the Candidate Countries are requested to fulfil a set of stringent criteria. Therefore, alternative mitigating measures can be put in place in such instances within the framework of other EU policies, as part of the enlargement policy.

In February 2020, Albania made a high-level political commitment to work with FATF and the Council of Europe to strengthen the effectiveness of its AML/CFT regime. Similarly, the Commission developed additional mitigating measures that were put in place to address key concerns. Albania expressed a high-level political commitment towards the Commission to implement further mitigating measures, notably further aligning with the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive and putting in place registers of beneficial ownership. These commitments go beyond the action plan agreed with FATF. Therefore those mitigating measures are considered as appropriate to address risks posed to the EU financial system at this stage. This option does not apply to third countries that are not in the process of acceding to the EU.

What are the consequences of the listing for financial institutions?

Under to the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive, banks and other financial institutions (“obliged entities”) have to apply extra checks (“enhanced customer due diligence requirements”) for transactions involving high-risk third countries identified on the list.

Customer due diligence corresponds to a series of checks and measures that a bank or an obliged entity has to use in case they have suspicions of high risk of money laundering or terrorist financing. Enhanced due diligence measures include extra checks and monitoring of those transactions by banks and obliged entities in order to prevent, detect and disrupt suspicious transactions.

The Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive clarifies the type of enhanced vigilance to be applied, which includes obtaining additional information on the customer and on the beneficial owner or obtaining the approval of senior management for establishing a business relationship.

The listing does not entail any type of sanctions, restrictions on trade relations or impediment to development aid but requires banks and obliged entities to apply enhanced vigilance measures on transactions involving these countries.

What are the consequences of the listing for the financial system?

According to the 4th AMLD, banks and other obliged entities are required to apply enhanced vigilance in transactions involving high-risk third countries (so called “enhanced customer due diligence requirements”). This is also in line with international obligations, where FATF already calls on its members to apply enhanced due diligence to high-risk jurisdictions. Those enhanced measures will lead to extra checks and monitoring of those transactions by banks and obliged entities in order to prevent, detect and disrupt suspicious transactions.

These measures do not entail any type of sanctions, restrictions trade relations or impediment to development aid but it aims to apply enhanced vigilance measures in those cases. In order to further clarify the type of enhanced vigilance to be applied, the 5th AMLD, adopted in June 2018, harmonises those enhanced measures.

What is the impact of the EU anti-money laundering list on EU-funded financial operations?

The listing process does not affect EU humanitarian assistance, EU development policy or the provision of grants, procurement and budget support.

The use of EU funded financial instruments and budgetary guarantees is subject to stricter provisions in relation to anti-money laundering and countering terrorist financing. According to the EU’s Financial Regulation and the European Fund for Sustainable Development Regulation, there is a prohibition against “Implementing Partners” (such as International Financial Institutions or National Promotional and Development Banks) entering into new or renewed operations with entities established in countries on the EU’s list of high risk third countries, when carrying out financial operations supported by the EU budget.

There is however an exemption when the action is physically implemented in the third country in question (subject to the absence of other risk factors). That means that when an action is physically implemented in a listed jurisdiction (i.e. when the financial operation supported by the Union budget is implemented in a listed jurisdiction exclusively for the purpose of financing a project in that same jurisdiction), the Implementing Partner can still carry out financial operations with entities established in that jurisdiction with the support of the EU. Therefore, there should be no adverse effect with regard to actions physically implemented in listed jurisdictions.

Why will the new protective measures only apply as of 1 October 2020?

The very exceptional and unpredictable situation arising from the Coronavirus pandemic has a global impact and is leading to significant disruption for economies and national administrations around the world. Therefore, the date of application of today’s Regulation listing third countries – and therefore applying new protective measures – only applies as of 1 October 2020. This is to ensure that all stakeholders have time to prepare appropriately. The delisting of countries, however, is not affected by this and will enter into force 20 days after publication in the Official Journal.

Will there be any technical assistance available for the countries identified as high-risk third countries?

The EU is committed to providing technical assistance to the countries identified as high-risk third countries. The Commission is one of the world’s leading donors when it comes to providing targeted support to tackle anti-money laundering / countering terrorist financing. The Commission currently has a programme (€20 million) under the Global Facility (AML/CFT) to support countries in the world to monitor, disrupt and deny the financing of terrorism and money-laundering. The Commission aims at supporting more partners to address AML/CFT issues. This process is demand-driven – i.e. countries will have to define their needs and request technical assistance to improve their AML/CFT regimes in the framework of the external aid policy of the Commission.

What are the next steps?

The Delegated Regulation has now been transmitted to the European Parliament and to the Council for a 1-month scrutiny period (extendable by 1 more month). If there is no objection during this period, the Delegated Regulation will be published in the Official Journal in view of its entry into force. The Commission will re-initiate its reviews under the autonomous assessment and come up with, at an appropriate time, a new autonomous list. These assessments will be subject to consultation of Member States’ experts and appropriate engagement with third countries, in cooperation with the European External Action Service (EEAS), as set in the refined methodology. The European Parliament and the Council will have access to all relevant information at the different stages of the procedures, subject to appropriate handling requirements. The Commission will continue to engage in FATF in order to ensure increased synergies between the EU and the FATF listing process.

Finally, as part of the planned review of AML/CFT rules at EU level, the Commission will conduct an impact assessment and propose legislative proposals in early 2021. Input from today’s open public consultation will feed into this impact assessment. The legislative proposals should ensure that risks posed by third countries are appropriately addressed.

Continue Reading
Comments

Intelligence

China and Russia’s infiltration of the American Jewish and Israeli lobbies

Published

on

 – First: The reasons for the registration of (Communist Lobbyists in the Middle East in the United States of America) in the database documents of the US Department of Justice

 – Second: Did Washington actually seek (with the help of Jewish and Israeli lobbies) to lure the Arab communists into it to prevent Chinese and Russian communist influence in the Middle East?: Iraq as a model

– Third: The establishment of Chinese liberal democratic parties in the United States of America and the Chinese Communist Party allowing them to practice their activities legally and freely inside China until today: the (Chinese Qigongdang Party) as a model

   Despite the strangeness of this previous analysis of the Egyptian researcher, she relied on it through the proof of the relationship of (Jewish lobbies in the United States of America to the opposition communists in Iran and the Middle East), and from here came the Egyptian researcher’s question, about:

  Do China and Russia have a role in supporting the polarization of the oppressed communists from inside Iran and the Middle East in general, planting them in Washington, facilitating and drawing a plan for their relations with the (Zionist lobby and the various Jewish lobbies) within the United States of America itself, and infiltrating all American official circles, to present the communists in the Middle East as persecuted in their homelands in the Middle East?

 Thus, (the Jewish lobby and all the well-known Jewish and Israeli institutions in the United States of America present these communists fleeing from their homelands to the major American institutions as persecuted communists in the Middle East). The most important question for the Egyptian researcher remains, about:

 (Why did the oppressed communists and leftists in Iran and the Middle East choose to flee to the heart of Washington as a superpower that sponsors liberalism around the world and is the most resolute and strictest in the face of the flow of communist ideas). And does it have anything to do with the future Russian and Chinese policies to infiltrate Washington itself and the communist thought to penetrate the Jewish lobbies inside American Trans (the game of spreading Chinese and Russian communist ideology within the major American political institutions).

 Perhaps it is a new global analysis that has not been addressed by any Arab research with analysis and study, but what attracted the Egyptian researcher is her precise area of expertise and her PhD study thesis was on the Chinese political affairs, and the role of the Chinese Communist Party in the political and economic reform issues, and thus the extension of the Egyptian researcher’s interests in studying the history of communists around the world, especially the closest to the region of the Egyptian researcher in the Middle East, Israel, Iran and Turkey as regional powers that seek to support or gain their influence through two unrelated mechanisms, either:

 A) Closeness to Washington and its liberal ideas, and the rejection of Chinese and Russian communist ideas and doctrine

 B) Or by defying Washington and applying pressure towards it by rapprochement with the communists of Russia and China, and thus challenging those liberal ideas and American democratic values ​​that Washington always seeks to promote globally.

  So that some would not accuse me of drawing features of unreasonable or unimaginable relations between (the Communists and the Jewish lobby in Washington through the support of China and Russia together), then the question I had about:

  What is the position of the United States of America and its institutions towards the Jewish lobbies within it regarding the facts of the Chinese and then Russian communist penetration of its institutions with the help and close support of the Jewish and Israeli lobbies most closely related and close to the American administration and the major American institutions themselves?

 – Based on these questions, the Egyptian researcher will analyze the following main elements to understand these new global relations that have not been searched for academically and globally, through:

 – First: The reasons for the registration of (Communist Lobbyists in the Middle East in the United States of America) in the database documents of the US Department of Justice

   Perhaps the “Pilgrimage to Washington” project, which is meant to cover the activities of the Middle East lobbies in the United States, and most of the information in the report is based on documents from a database of the US Department of Justice, which follows the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which is known as “Fara”, which Lobbyists are required to disclose their activities and funds, and all documents are available for browsing on the Internet.

  Through the Egyptian researcher following the previous American report, she was able to find a new relationship that proves the registration of (communists from the Middle East as independent lobbies in the US Department of Justice, and their relations with Jewish and Israeli lobbies inside the American interior itself).

  Looking at the previous US archive of Communist records, we will find that (the documents of the US Department of Justice explicitly refer to the intense political activity of the opposition communist parties in the Middle East inside Washington with the help of Jewish and Israeli lobbies).

   By tracing the relations of the communists in Washington, we will find that, according to the official American data issued by the US Department of Justice, we will find a record of building relations between the Middle Eastern communist parties in Washington and the United States, and building influence networks with politicians in the US Congress and the US State Department itself, with those communist parties communicating  Right-leaning research centers on the American interior, and they have a special influential relationship, according to the American database of the US Department of Justice, with (the Israeli lobby in Washington).

 Hence, the official US reports themselves present a comprehensive and detailed picture of the activities of communist and leftist parties coming from the Middle East, such as the Kurdish party opposing Iranian policies in the world of lobbies.

  The documents indicate that the (Kurdish Communist Party opposed to Iran) contracted with (IF International) to penetrate the corridors of Washington itself through the gate of the Jewish and Israeli lobbies in Washington.

  The files of the US Department of Justice indicate that the opposition communist parties authorized official representatives of their parties in America to establish close relations with the US government with the help of the powerful and most influential Jewish lobby with the help of Israel, and the most significant question mark is the increase in the total payments of these Middle Eastern communist parties inside the US of thousands of dollars per month  Including the expenses of opening representative offices for its parties there.

  For example, we find a document issued by the US Department of Justice on January 2, 2019, in which (the opposition Kurdish Communist Party in Syria and Iran) contracted with the company (IF International), as a well-known international American lobbying company, and among its well-known clients in the Middle East:

  The Syrian Democratic Council, which is the political wing of the (Syrian Democratic Forces), known as the “SDF”, as one of the largest armed Kurdish factions stationed in northern Syria and supported by the United States.

 The services provided by (IF International Company) to those communist, left-wing Arab, Middle Eastern, Iranian and Kurdish opposition parties in their homelands in the Middle East are summarized in:

 1) Communication and pressure on Congress, especially with congressional staff working in the State Department and the armed forces.

  2) Communicating on behalf of those communist and leftist parties with right-leaning think tanks in general, or funded and supported by the Israeli lobby.

 3) In addition to (IF International Company’s keenness) to facilitate communication of communist parties and movements from the Middle East with the largest internationally known Israeli lobby in Washington, known as (AIPAC), and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

 The company of (IF International) is owned by the well-known Jewish American citizen (Eyal Frank), a political consultant who worked for political parties, and has long experience in the field of political pressure, as “Eyal Frank” previously worked in major companies, such as: (Mercury – Qorivs), and he worked as a legislative assistant in Congress between 2000-2002.

   The total payments of the communist and leftist parties from the Middle East to the mentioned American company amounted to thousands of dollars per month, according to its documented documents registered in the (US Department of Justice).

 – Second: Did Washington actually seek (with the help of Jewish and Israeli lobbies) to lure the Arab communists into it to prevent Chinese and Russian communist influence in the Middle East?: Iraq as a model

   The issue of the penetration of communist influence in the Middle East in general and in Iraq in particular is one of the most important issues that have attracted the attention of the United States of America, due to the important strategic location of Iraq in the Middle East, as it is one of the most important centres of oil production in the region and the world, despite the presence of Iraq within the accounts of the American strategy before World War II, however, America’s large entry into Iraq actually began after (the emergence of the communists on the Iraqi political scene) after the 1958 revolution, and this is a piece of information that was overlooked and ignored by most Arab and international research and studies.

  Then the political weight of the (Communist Party in Iraq) began to weaken after the Baathists took power following the movement of November 18, 1963. However, as a result of the intensive arrests and continuous pursuit of members of the Iraqi Communist Party and its organizations, the Iraqi communist and leftist movement subsided, even if it did not end or completely died.

  During the 1967 war between Iraq and Israel and Iraq’s entry into it, the Soviet Union tried to get closer to Iraq, but the American weight was stronger, which caused the collapse of the rule of (Abdul Rahman Aref) in 1968, and the Iraqi political arena was almost completely emptied of the communists.

  What caught the Egyptian researcher’s attention and curiosity was what many American presidents have repeatedly said about their “willingness to fight a third world war if they had to, so that Iraq or the Middle East in general would not be a foothold for communism”.

 Hence, the Egyptian researcher stopped at this previous phrase in research and analysis, regarding:

  Her research on the reasons for the absence of Iraqi, Kurdish, Iranian and Arab communists.

  Then suddenly the Egyptian researcher stopped at the presence of Arab, Iranian and Kurdish communist parties and the Syrian opposition within the American interior itself, which prompted the Egyptian researcher to have a theoretical hypothesis:

 Did America seek to get rid of the influence of the communists and the Arab leftists, especially the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Kurds and the Turks in the Middle East in the face of the Soviet Union and later Russia after its disintegration and China, by inviting them – that is, the communists of the Middle East region – into the United States of America itself and facilitating their unspoken assimilation into the (Liberalism intellectual agenda), and then waiting again to use them against Chinese and Russian influence in the Middle East again?

 Then the Egyptian researcher thought about another theoretical hypothesis that was not put forward at all, which is:

 Did Russia and China, through the Jewish and Israeli lobbies in the American interior itself, seek to re- polarize these communists fleeing their homelands in the Middle East once again and recruit them to serve their interests in the United States of America in the face of Washington itself?

 Which is what the Egyptian researcher could call the theory (playing with toys or returning the game with another game).

  Perhaps the most important thing I relied on in my previous analysis was (the presence of dozens of communist and leftist Arab, Iranian, Kurdish and Turkish parties that are actually opposed inside the American interior), and the emergence of communist names, especially Kurdish, Iranian and Syrian, once again as influential and influential elites in Washington itself.

   And I think that (the game of the Chinese and Russian communist penetration into the American interior is a completely logical game from my point of view), it is not an unlikely game as some will accuse me, after the American political elites and the most prominent American politicians point completely accusing fingers at (the corruption of the ruling Communist Party of China, and talk about the communist and liberal ideological war between Washington and Beijing)

 Perhaps one of the most prominent things that stopped me in this context is the accusation by prominent officials in the American administration itself and in the centers of American rule of the Communist Party of China that it is the cause of the spread of the Corona virus, or the cause of the deterioration of the world and so on. It is a sign, despite its strangeness – but it is understandable to the Egyptian researcher due to her academic research and analytical specialization on that very crucial point – regarding the export of American politicians that the hostility between the United States of America and China is not political, but has become (ideological dispute or ideological war) in the first place.  This raises many questions about:

 (The American, Chinese and Russian play and hack each other through the communist and liberal ideological gate in the face of each other)

 And even the most dangerous proposition went too far, about: Beijing and Moscow unilaterally inviting a number of American politicians to visit their countries and meet their officials in the form of announced unofficial visits. In fact, accusations were extended during the US presidential elections period by supporters of the former President (Trump) to investigate the reasons for inviting (Joe Biden), the current US president to China, and meeting with its officials and praising them, at a time when he assumed the position of responsibility in the administration of former President (Barack Obama).

 Rather, the accusations of the candidate’s supporters (Trump) at the time went even further, accusing (Biden) of working for the Communist Party of China, based on the reasons for his previously unannounced visit to Beijing, and whether he was the favorite communist candidate in Beijing and Moscow?

 Here, we must consider this future game between all its parties, regarding:

 (They accuse each other of adopting a Chinese or Russian communist agenda, or a hegemonic US imperialist liberal agenda seeking world domination)

 It is a matter or a proposal that has become new in its context, and from here I can almost imagine according to this proposition: the extent of the American determination to transform the competition between China, Russia and Washington from being (a political war or just a legitimate political competition for leadership of the new world order to an ideological war or an ideological and ideological competition) between communists and liberals around the world)…and this is where the danger lies, or less the danger of the proposition with which Washington started its game with China, regarding:

 Distracting the attention of the whole world and even its peoples and broadening the base of accusations from political affiliation in favor of the Chinese and Russian alliance together or the US to adopting communist ideology, ideas or values ​​in the face of its liberal or American democratic counterpart, and this proposition is what Washington insists on in all global circles.  This raises many questions about:

 The reasons for the presence of former Arab, Iranian, Turkish and Kurdish communists in Washington itself and the penetration of its political institutions, the reasons and the extent of their relations with the Jewish and Israeli lobby, and what is most dangerous to me and what concerns me personally and academically, are:

 The extent of the relationship between China and Russia in penetrating the communist and leftist lobbies in Washington by supporting those same Jewish and Israeli lobbies in the American interior, and thus the response of the American game itself by luring and protecting communist lobbies in the United States of America, and using them at an appropriate time to confront the agenda of China and Russia through the adoption of China and Russia for these communists who  Washington adopts them in its lands under the pretext of protecting them from the persecution of their homelands to which they belong, especially in the Middle East, as we mentioned.

– Third: The establishment of Chinese liberal democratic parties in the United States of America and the Chinese Communist Party allowing them to practice their activities legally and freely inside China until today: the (Qiqongdang Liberal Democratic Party of China) as a model

  Perhaps this information came as a surprise to many – in the Arab world and from non-academics and specialists in Chinese and communist academic studies around the world – who are not aware of the existence of (eight parties operating within Chinese society itself that follow American liberal democratic values, including parties founded by expatriate Chinese who lived in the United States). The United States of America itself, then they returned and settled inside China, and they were allowed to engage in their opposition party activity.

 Perhaps the most prominent Chinese liberal democratic party founded by a group of Chinese expatriates inside the United States of America itself is (the Qigongdang Party in China), which was founded in the city (San Francisco) in the United States of America by Chinese expatriates who were living within the same American society, most of whom are university graduates.  And when most of them returned to the bosom of the motherland in China, they submitted an official request to establish this party, and the surprise to them and to the American observers was that the official Chinese authorities missed their American counterpart that opportunity, by allowing the ruling Chinese communist authorities to practice their activities according to the scope of the similar liberal democratic party practice.  With those American values ​​that they brought back from abroad, i.e. from the United States of America itself, and carried them into Chinese society, this party is practicing its activities completely freely until this moment with the knowledge of the Chinese authorities without any harassment mentioned by the testimony of its members.

 The Egyptian researcher analyzed this very important point that (the Chinese authorities have succeeded in missing the opportunity for Washington to allow the return of these Chinese expatriates, most of whom studied in American universities and were saturated with liberal American culture, by giving them the freedom to establish a liberal democratic political party in China itself).

  Currently, the (Qiqongdang Liberal Democratic Party of China) consists of Chinese personalities from the middle and upper classes, most of whom are expatriates or Chinese immigrants who have returned to the country. After returning to their homeland in China, these expatriates and immigrants were able to attract their Chinese parents and friends to participate and become members of this party.  And expanding its base, despite following the approach and philosophy of American liberal democratic values ​​that are different from the communist approach that the majority of Chinese owe.

  On the other hand, the official Chinese authorities also allowed the licensing of (seven other parties) that follow the same liberal democratic values, in addition to the (Qigongdang Party) as we mentioned, and all of them were allowed to operate officially and legally in China, bringing the total of those liberal democratic parties in Chinese society (eight liberal parties  Chinese democracy), which is as follows:

 1) (Taiwan Democratic Party Self-Government League): It is located

 In (Hong Kong), however, his official headquarters has moved from (Hong Kong) to the Chinese capital, Beijing), and many information about him and his most prominent current activities and the names of his most prominent members are available in the archive of the well-known (China Network) website.

 2) The (Jiusan Association Party): which focuses on the need to implement democracy within Chinese society.

 3) (Chinese Association Party for the Development of Democracy): which raises the slogans of (implementing democratic policy in China, reforming Chinese authority, and then returning power to the Chinese people themselves). This party is currently adopting an agenda dominated by (the blending of American liberal democratic values ​​with Chinese socialist values), by promoting the adoption of the (socialist democracy model).

 4) The (Chinese Democratic Party of Peasants and Workers): which is based on the slogan of (establishment of the power of the Chinese people), and most importantly, its current constitution expressly provides for the acceptance of (the leadership of the Communist Party of China), and welcomes the cooperation of all liberal democratic parties with the ruling Communist Party in China, according to  The mechanism or system of (political consultation), according to what is recorded in the a well-known (China Network Website Archive) in China.

5) (KMT Revolutionary Committee Party): whose members adopt the liberal democratic doctrine, noting that (KMT) itself is an old party that was overthrown by the ruling Communist Party in China, but it is a group of old party members who wanted to work legitimately under the supervision of the same Chinese state, and applied for the founding of the (KMT Revolutionary Committee Party), and the official Chinese authorities immediately approved their request, and its members currently adopt the principles and slogans of (Unification of China), and include members of the upper and middle levels or classes in the Chinese society mainly.

  6) (Chinese Democratic National Building Association Party): The political advocacy of this party is to guarantee the basic political rights of the Chinese citizen, protect the human rights of citizens, protect and develop national industry and trade, and oppose the rule of the (old Kuomintang Party), that was overthrown by the ruling Communist Party in China. There are many data published about him, according to the official Chinese media.

  7) (Chinese Democratic Front Party League): bearing the name of (Chinese Democratic League), officially recognized by the Chinese authorities, which began its political activity as a joint political organization of parties and political forces calling for democracy, and was welcomed by the ruling Communist authorities in China.

  Hence, we find that the Chinese official authorities had (a future view in their relationship with the United States of America as a global hegemon that seeks to spread its liberal democratic values ​​around the world), by allowing the return of its Chinese citizens from the United States of America and giving them the right to exercise their political convictions in complete freedom within the framework of the state and the law and the prevailing Chinese constitution, while ensuring the freedom to exercise their own liberal democratic political beliefs and ideology under the supervision of the Chinese authorities at home. And it is the most dangerous and most important point that all of us should stop at, which indicates a (Chinese foresight regarding its future relationship with the world and the American values ​​themselves).

  Hence, the ruling Chinese communist authorities raise in the face of the United States of America and the West themselves critics of its political practice under the slogan of (political consultation between the political parties in China, and collective consultative decisions), which means: those decisions taken by the ruling Communist Party after consulting (the Eight Liberal democracy Parties) in the Chinese society, and this is one of the most prominent points of intelligence in the mechanism of exercising governance in China, by allowing the absorption of those opposition political entities and parties as long as they submit an official request to work within Chinese society itself under the supervision of the Chinese state itself.

  This is what Washington fears when other Chinese expatriates submit the similar requests to the American authorities to allow them to establish communist and left ideological parties within the American society, expand their membership base by attracting and recruiting new members, and push those communist and leftist parties with Chinese communist ideology to compete in the future in the American elections by the Chinese or Russian financial fund raising.

  Through the previous analysis, the Egyptian researcher concluded that the current competition between the United States of America, China and Russia is no longer a political or even economic and cultural competition as much as it is a tacit recognition by Washington itself and its politicians that it is (an ideological and doctrine competition between the American liberal values ​​and Chinese communist values).

  By shedding light on what is happening inside the American interior by polarizing the communists themselves to work under the supervision of the American authorities, and the Chinese attracting these liberal democrats with American orientations to work inside communist China officially, it becomes clear to us that it is (an ideological game that has been preparing for many years between the Americans and the Chinese Communists).

  In the same context, the same idea invokes me in the Arab context and in the Middle East itself, is it possible to expand the base of real partisan competition between those with liberal and communist values ​​in our countries, or does the scale tilt only in favor of American liberal democratic values, despite criticism of the American policy itself in our Arab countries?

  And my last and most serious question remains in this new future analysis of the Egyptian researcher, and it is the inevitable question that I have no choice but to ask without searching for an answer to it, which is:

  Can China and Russia intervene to finance and establish Arab communist and leftist parties and in the Middle East in general, and even around the world under supervision of African, Arab, Latin and other governments closely related to China to expand the base of communists and bearers of communist tendencies at the expense of American liberal values?, It is the question of the future that we should all keep towards the future.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

The New World Order: The conspiracy theory and the power of the Internet

Published

on

“The Illuminati, a mysterious international organisation made up of the world’s top political and social elites, controls the workings of the entire world behind the scenes”. This is the world’s most famous conspiracy theory about the New World Order.

For hundreds of years, legends about the Illuminati have been spread and many people currently believe that the Illuminati still exist. It is believed that the Illuminati operate in various fields such as global politics, military affairs, finance and mass media and control the historical process of the entire world.

The ultimate goal is to establish a New World Order. Nobody can prove it, but many people believe it. This is the greatest paradox about conspiracy theories.

In the 2009 film, Angels and Demons – based on Dan Brown’s best seller of the same name about Professor Langdon, played by Tom Hanks – the story of the Illuminati, who supposedly originated in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment, was recalled. There were physicists, mathematicians and astronomers who questioned the “erroneous teachings” of the authority of the Holy See and dedicated themselves to the scientific field of the search for truth.

Eventually, the Illuminati were forced to become a clandestine organisation and have continued to recruit members for hundreds of years to this day. In Angels and Demons, the historical facts are clearly questionable, and the movie appeared after the great economic crisis of 2007-2008.

The New World Order conspiracy theory has been circulating for a long time and is full of mysterious theories that, however, convince many people who are powerless and dissatisfied with the current state of the world.

The Illuminati, who advocate the establishment of a New World Order through the planning of a series of political and financial events (the financial tsunami of 2007-2008 is said to have been planned by the Illuminati), attempt to influence the course of world history, and ultimately establish an authoritarian world government.

Supporters of the New World Order theory believe that even the powerful US government is now just a puppet government. While another “shadow government” made up of a few people makes decisions that will change the fate of the planet.

You might think that all of the above is just crackpot theories. Many people, however, believe this is true. According to a 2013 poll conducted by the Public Policy Polling Foundation, 28% of US voters believe that the New World Order is actually taking hold.

Brian L. Keeley, a professor of philosophy at Pitts College who devotes himself to the study of modern conspiracy theories, believes that an important feature of conspiracy theorists is that they cite some trivial and overlooked incidents and then propose a perfect explanation compared to an embarrassed official response. The reason why the conspiracy theory explanation can be widely disseminated is that it has no argumentation process to deny. It is just a judgement that jumps directly from hypothesis to conclusion. In the argumentation process, it is only a subjective interpretation of the event.

Nevertheless, for the public that does not fully understand the incident, the conspiracy theory provides an “explanation” for the unknown part of the said incident, and this “explanation” cannot be denied (because its very existence is not corroborated by real arguments and facts). It is therefore recognised as a valid argument by many people.

For example, no one has substantial evidence to prove that the Illuminati actually exist, but no one can prove that the Illuminati are purely fictitious. Therefore, you cannot deny their existence because their existence is “perfection without evidence”.

Columnist Martha Gill wrote in The Guardian on the subject, describing the Illuminati as the most enduring conspiracy theory organisation in world history.

“Conspiracy theories relating to the 1969 moon landing mission, the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks, etc., are all limited to a specific time and place. But conspiracy theories supporting the existence of the Illuminati can connect them. Anything about these connections, however, is difficult to prove”. In other words, the supporters of conspiracy theories may have common imagination and attribute everything to this organisation, so that every irrational phenomenon in the world can be explained.

Although no one can prove the real existence of the Illuminati, there is actually an alleged “global shadow government” in the world whose name is the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group holds an annual world-class private meeting and participants include elites from all walks of society such as government, business, media, science and technology.

Known as the “World’s Most Mysterious Conference”, the Bilderberg Group invites various famous political and economic figures to participate in its meetings every year.

Prince Bernhard van Lippe-Biesterfeld (1911-2004) held the first meeting in 1954. As the venue for the meeting was the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, that name was used as the name of the group.

The existence of the Bilderberg Group is not a secret, but the content of the topics discussed at the Conferences is absolutely confidential and mainstream media cannot report on the content of the meetings.

The Bilderberg Group issues a press release every year to introduce the Conference participants and the outline of the topics discussed. Over the years, participants have come from many places, including Prince Philip of Edinburgh (1921-2021) of the British Royal Family, Crown Prince Charles, former British Prime Ministers, French President Macron, German Chancellor Merkel, former US Presidents Bush and Clinton, and even Bill Gates and other Internet giants. There were also Italians, as reported years ago in a newspaper of our country.

The 2018 Conference was held in Turin, Italy, in June. According to the description on the Bilderberg Group’s official website, the main topics included European populism, the development of artificial intelligence, quantum computer technology and the “post-truth” era. Obviously the actual content and results of the meeting’s discussion have never been reported.

Therefore, the Bilderberg Group has naturally become a locus where conspiracy theorists want to draw material. They describe the Bilderberg Group as true evidence of the theory that a very small number of elites controls the world, and the participants are planning a New World Order.

On the subject of strange things, let us give some examples. In June 2018, the British Royal Family was also caught up in conspiracy theories. When Prince Harry and his wife Meghan attended a show, they were caught on camera motionless, like two stiff and dull robots. Later related clips went viral on the Internet and netizens were in an uproar: many people believed that the distinguished members of the Royal Family were actually robots developed by high technology.

However, the management of the London museum, Madame Tussauds, later explained the mystery by stating that Harry and Meghan were only played by two actors who wore extremely high-realism wax masks on their faces – all to promote an exhibition of wax statues – and inadvertently caused an uproar.

In that short video, Harry and Meghan did not change their facial appearance and their expressions were stiff just like robots. Consequently, conspiracy theorists used this as evidence that they were robots secretly built by the British Royal Family.

This argument is an extension of the ‘trivial evidence’ mentioned above. The argument proponents ignore any argumentation process and directly draw the final conclusion through the above stated “trivial evidence”. This conclusion is highly topical and quite appealing. With the fast spread of the Internet, the “quick truth” will naturally be recognised and sought after by many people.

I think many people still remember the “Mandela effect” that spread wildly across the Internet in the early years as a false memory. The name “Mandela effect” is believed to have come from Fiona Broome, a self-described “paranormal consultant”, who created a website called the “Mandela effect”. Supporters of the ‘Mandela effect’ claim to “remember” that former South African President Mandela died in prison in the 1980s. But in reality, after being released from prison, Mandela served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999 and died in December 2013.

So why should anyone believe this seemingly absurd statement? The Internet has become a support platform for a lot of false content, fake news, as well as unreasonableness and lack of justification. When someone shared that ‘false memory’ with others on the Internet, many people believed it to be true, and even suddenly recalled having that memory: “Mandela died in prison that year”.

As a result, lies inconsistent with facts continue to spread. The lie is repeated thousands of times and many people consider it to be the truth: this learning phase is the first misleading rule on the Internet.

In the Internet era, multidimensional and multiplatform features have generated a number of online “malignancies” of conspiracy theories. Moreover, their dissemination ability is not limited to “believers” only. Since online social media provide a widespread and wide dissemination platform, one passes it onto ten people, ten spread it to a hundred, a hundred to a thousand, and so it goes on in geometric fashion, thus turning a ‘hot’ topic on the Internet into an absolute truth. Those who want to believe are naturally prepared and willing to do so. Moreover, these false opinions on the Internet may even have an impact on the real world.

For example, at the political level, everyone can now comment and participate in the online arena. For politicians to get the right to speak and set the agenda, the key is to rely on the public’s direction on the Internet. The Internet discourse has become the dominant factor of the political storytelling, and not vice versa. The characteristics of social networks are precisely the breeding ground for conspiracy theories.

The Internet is easy to spread among the public and it is exactly the breeding ground for conspiracy theories.

Nowadays, conspiracy theories are enough to influence politics and even political developments. A specific conspiracy theory gains a number of supporters through the Internet that promotes it to become a highly debated topic among the public. Consequently, it enters the real political arena coming from the virtual community and its influence can change the direction of governmental decisions.

Looking at it from another perspective, when conspiracy theories are put on the Internet and continue to proliferate – regardless of whether the Illuminati exist or not – they are enough to establish a New World Order. The real-world public opinions, as well as the composition of opinions and the basis of social discussions are changed, and thus world’s countries, politics and rulers are affected.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

USA and Australia Worry About Cyber Attacks from China Amidst Pegasus Spyware

Published

on

Pegasus Spyware Scandal has shaken whole India and several other countries. What will be its fallout no one knows as we know only tip of iceberg. Amidst Pegasus Spyware Scandal USA and Australia both have shown serious concerns about Cyber Attacks on US and Australian interests. Both say that China is hub of malware software and both face millions of such attacks daily.

I am trying to understand why a software is needed to spy on a particular individual when all calls, messages, data, emails are easily accessible from server. In most of cases these servers are located in USA and some cases these are located in host country. In certain sensitive cases Government Agencies have their own server like Central Intelligence Agency and hundreds of other agencies and military establishment world over including India. Now point is who installs those servers.

A couple of years back I had talked to Mr Mike Molloy who is Chief Executive Officer of Orion Global Technologies previously known as Orion SAS. He had explained me how his company installs servers in host countries on request of private or gov bodies. He talks about contract and trust. That means even when a company or Gov buys a server or software for designated uses the “Secrecy” Factor remain on discretion of company which has supplied server or software.

Now  if all data, e-mail, chat, messages, calls are accessible to Gov as per law and technology (Through Server all components of Communication are accessible and thats why  me and you see start seeing call recording of a person even after many years later), I am unable to understand why a Gov will be needing a software to Spy on any one.

Now coming to where Australia and USA wants to carry the whole debate.

Australian Foreign Minister Sen Marise Payne said, “Australian Government joins international partners in expressing serious concerns about malicious cyber activities by China’s Ministry of State Security.

“In consultation with our partners, the Australian Government has determined that China’s Ministry of State Security exploited vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Exchange software to affect thousands of computers and networks worldwide, including in Australia. These actions have undermined international stability and security by opening the door to a range of other actors, including cybercriminals, who continue to exploit this vulnerability for illicit gain”, She further added.

She opined, ”The Australian Government is also seriously concerned about reports from our international partners that China’s Ministry of State Security is engaging contract hackers who have carried out cyber-enabled intellectual property theft for personal gain and to provide commercial advantage to the Chinese Government”.

She warned China by saying, “Australia calls on all countries – including China – to act responsibly in cyberspace.  China must adhere to the commitments it has made in the G20, and bilaterally, to refrain from cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets and confidential business information with the intent of obtaining competitive advantage”.

On other hand USA’s The National Security Agency (NSA), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released a Cybersecurity Advisory on Chinese State-Sponsored Cyber Operations. National Security Advisor said, ”Chinese state-sponsored cyber activity poses a major threat to U.S. and allied systems. These actors aggressively target political, economic, military, educational, and critical infrastructure personnel and organizations to access valuable, sensitive data. These cyber operations support China’s long-term economic and military objectives”.

The information in this advisory builds on NSA’s previous release “Chinese State-Sponsored Actors Exploit Publicly Known Vulnerabilities.” The NSA, CISA, and FBI recommended mitigations empower our customers to reduce the risk of Chinese malicious cyber activity, and increase the defensive posture of their critical networks. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

taliban afghanistan taliban afghanistan
South Asia1 hour ago

Why Strategies of Stakeholders in Afghanistan Failing Against Taliban?

Taliban is increasingly gaining ground in Afghanistan, on daily basis, for considerable period. US may have declared ending its military...

Human Rights3 hours ago

COVID-19: Education replaced by shuttered schools, violence, teenage pregnancy

A culture of “safety, friends and food” at school has been replaced by “anxiety, violence, and teenage pregnancy”, with remote...

Human Rights5 hours ago

Six months after coup, Myanmar’s political, rights and aid crisis is worsening

It’s been six months since the military coup in Myanmar where there’s grave concern over the widening impact of the...

Green Planet7 hours ago

Sink or swim: Can island states survive the climate crisis?

Small island nations across the world are bearing the brunt of the climate crisis, and their problems have been accentuated...

Health & Wellness10 hours ago

Delta variant, a warning the COVID-19 virus is getting ‘fitter and faster’

Cases and deaths resulting from COVID-19 continue to climb worldwide, mostly fuelled by the highly transmissible Delta variant, which has...

Africa Today11 hours ago

Investing in Key Sectors to Help Nigeriens Recover From the Health and Security Crises

The Covid-19 pandemic crisis and the security situation continue to undermine the Nigerien economy, wiping out years of hard-won gains...

Tech News13 hours ago

Ensuring a More Inclusive Future for Indonesia through Digital Technologies

While Indonesia has one of the fastest growing digital economies in South East Asia, action is needed to ensure that...

Trending