The Financial Action Task Force(FATF) said Friday it added Ecuador, Yemen and Vietnam to its list of countries that haven’t made sufficient progress in tackling money laundering and terrorist financing.
The three countries were slapped with a label saying they either didn’t address deficiencies in fighting money laundering and terrorism finance, or that they didn’t commit to an action plan with the FATF to deal with the issues.
“The FATF calls on its members to consider the risks arising from the deficiencies associated with each jurisdiction,” it said in a statement.
Ecuador, Yemen and Vietnam have each, the FATF said, taken some steps toward fixing the problem, though none of them have done enough to prevent the blacklisting.
Countries that fail to implement FATF’s recommendations run the risk of being labeled as high-risk or uncooperative jurisdictions, thereby making it even more costly and difficult for those nations to do business with the banking systems of FATF members. The FATF’s members include the U.S., Mexico, France and the U.K.
The FATF’s last plenary was in February, when it updated its recommendations to include tax evasion and smuggling as “predicate offenses” to money laundering. It met last week in Rome.
Turkmenistan was cited as having “largely met its commitments” under the action plan, and is therefore no longer subject to monitoring by the FATF, it said.
In addition, the FATF added Afghanistan, Albania, Kuwait and the Philippines to its list of countries seen as countries making progress toward implementing plans to fight terrorism finance and money laundering.
The countries on the so-called “gray list” have strategic deficiencies in their systems for fighting the issues, but they have committed to action plans and are making progress in dealing with them.
The Philippines is by far the most notable in the list, because it was identified in February after the last FATF plenary session as not having made sufficient progress, putting it on a so-called “dark gray” list.
This month, the Philippines enacted an amendment to its money laundering law and a law to combat the financing of terrorism, both of which were lauded by the FATF on Friday. It “strongly encourages” the country to pass another pending change to the country’s money-laundering law.
The FATF’s announcement Friday upgraded the Philippines from the “dark gray” list to the “gray list.” More coverage of the Philippines is available here, here and here.
Calling the announcement “positive news…particularly for our overseas workers and our economy,” the country’s Anti-Money Laundering Council said in a statement that the pending legislation would expand the definition of money laundering under Philippine law and increase the predicate crimes to include bribery, human trafficking, tax evasion and environmental crime.
“The Philippines will continue to contribute and support the global efforts against money laundering and terrorist financing in keeping with its commitment to good governance and upholding peace and order,” the statement said.
Source: The Wall Street Journal June 25,2012
...Read more>>>
FATF Blacklists Ecuador, Yemen, and Vietnam
Human rights can't be led from behind: US Expert
Are Democrats ceding the human rights mantle to Republicans? The recent spectacle of a blind Chinese dissident being whisked by wheelchair from our embassy in Beijing suggests that the issue of human rights still has the ability to command Americans' attention.
In fact, it might be one of the few foreign policy issues where daylight remains between the two presidential candidates.
Consider the following: A recent survey by the political scientists Josh Busby, Will Inboden and Jon Monten found that Democratic foreign policy specialists were less likely to identify human rights as a "very important" policy priority (about 50 percent, compared with nearly 85 percent of such Republican specialists). Indeed, on this issue the Democratic Party has shifted to the center.
Republicans, meanwhile, have continued their embrace of neoconservatism, which places greater weight in the sanctity of U.S. force to protect human freedom abroad (Mitt Romney's foreign policy team is stuffed with such dewy-eyed conservatives).
The reasons for this shift are manifold: Progressive Democrats might feel that human rights have been co-opted to serve other interests and no longer have faith in Washington's ability to promote them with integrity. They may associate the cause with the failed democracy-promotion agenda of Obama's predecessor. Or perhaps the party has strategically softened its stance to project a more macho air on national security and win over undecided voters.
Still, the survey suggests progressive Democrats could be at risk of abandoning, or at least de-prioritizing, deeply held principles of human rights that have guided the party from its inception.
Spotty record
Take Obama's own spotty record. He balked at granting the Dalai Lama an Oval Office invitation and didn't press the issue of human rights on his visit to China. He punted on his campaign promise to shutter the Guantanamo Bay prison. And his administration has tried to block the a measure that would freeze assets and deny visas to Russian officials guilty of human rights abuses.
Perhaps most controversially, Obama has stepped up the use of drone strikes abroad, killing undisclosed numbers of civilians.
Obama has also been a reluctant interventionist, preferring a hands-off approach to the Arab Spring and protests in Russia, Iran and other authoritarian states. While accepting his Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, Obama preached the importance of "just" interventions. "To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism," he said, "it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."
Yet, his speak-softly stance has drawn fire from his Republican opponent, particularly Obama's policy toward Iran and Syria.
"President Obama's lack of leadership has resulted in a policy of paralysis that has watched (Bashar) Assad slaughter 10,000 individuals," Romney said recently.
Shifting sands
Part of the shift from human rights is a function of today's Democratic elite, Obama included. While the Baby Boom generation's world view was shaped by Vietnam, the new elites' formative years were the 1980s and 1990s. This era included intervention successes, notably Iraq in 1991, but also disasters (Lebanon in 1982-83 and Somalia in 1993).
As Peter Beinart noted in his 2006 book, "The Good Fight," the party of Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman has traditionally focused on U.S. legitimacy abroad and self-improvement at home. Democrats from Obama's generation understand America's moral fallibility, as well as the importance of international institutions. In the political scientists' survey, Democrats were much more favorable toward strengthening institutions such as the International Criminal Court than Republicans were.
Yet liberalism has also been about promoting America's core values, especially human rights, on the world stage, both through international institutions and, at times, military intervention. Democrats cannot allow the failures, dramas and expenses of the latter to deter them from supporting the full spectrum of U.S. tools, including force, when necessary to support their ideals.
When a Pakistani doctor is tried for treason for assisting American forces or the Syrian government slaughters thousands of its own citizens, these are moral issues that should not come at the expense of U.S. strategic concerns with Islamabad or Moscow. There are times when hard-won principles such as the responsibility to protect have to trump pragmatic interests.
Human rights, of course, involve trade-offs and prioritization -- not every crisis should command U.S. intervention. And some notable progress on this front has been made by this administration. Burma's release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest and our intervention in Libya top this administration's list of achievements. Obama also deserves kudos for launching the Atrocities Prevention Board, a government panel to appraise the threat of mass killings, and for enacting tougher sanctions against governments' use of technology to trample human rights.
But as we disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan, and as the fight against global jihad recedes, human rights should return to the forefront. No, the issue is not expected to top voters' concerns this election season, but by ceding the moral high ground on this issue to their opponents, Democrats do themselves, and their intellectual forefathers, a disservice.
Human rights are the last issue the White House should be seen as "leading from behind."
Lionel Beehner is a fellow at the Truman National Security Project and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
...Read more>>>
ASEAN Rights commission like a 'train wreck' says director
Human Rights Watch director says participation of society needed
Manila Ten member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) should include non-government rights groups in the drafting of the region’s much-awaited human rights declaration, activists have said.
“The international community must demand that Asean’s Inter-government Commission on Human Rights (AICHR ) permit full civil society participation in the drafting of the Asean Human Rights Declaration (AHRD),” Phil Robertson Asia deputy director, Human Rights Watch (HRW), said in an article in The Nation.
As of now, the commission is like “a full blown train wreck,” Robertson added.
Because of its intransigence, the AICHR is like a “commission shrouded in secrecy,” said Forum Asia, the region’s coalition of human rights groups.
About 100 civil society organisations and networks in Asean countries have already called for the release of AHRD’s draft, to check if the commission is progressive or conservative, said the Manila Times.
Earlier, Navi Pillay the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said in Bali, Indonesia, in November 2011: “No discussion of human rights can be complete or credible without significant input from civil society and national human rights institutions.”
Rights groups are extremely frustrated because they are not participating in the drafting of the AHRD, Pillay said.
Last January, during AICHR’s meeting in Siem Reap, Cambodia, “officials from Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, provided comment as a block of nations, [and] proposed more progressive wording [of the declaration],” Manila Times quoted Mizzima Publications as saying.
A human-rights advocate on Myanmar affairs, Mizzima accused Laos and Vietnam of proposing conditional upholding of human rights in the region.
Limiting rights
Reading from a leaked copy of AHRD’s draft, Mizzima quoted Laos as proposing that the “exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms [in Asean] shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely... to meet the just requirements of national security, public order, public health and public morality and the general welfare of the peoples in a democratic society”.
Laos wanted to limit “the right to practice one’s religion or belief” and wants these to be subject to the country’s national laws,” said Mizzima, adding this would make Asean countries’ exempted from AHRD’s mandate because of their respective laws on security, public morality and other issues.
Vietnam showed reservations “about the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to freely receive information,” reported Mizzima.
Laos also called for “non-confrontation, avoidance of double standards and non-politicisation” in the upholding of human rights, said Robertson who also got a copy of AHRD’s draft.
Malaysia called for the upholding of “rights and freedoms within the regional context” or within “Asean core values,” said Robertson, adding that those in charge of AHRD’s draft focused more on “limiting rights — rather than promoting and protecting them”.
In all, AHRD “seeks to undermine international standards,” assessed Robertson, referring to the benchmark already reached by the United Nations Human Rights Council and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
‘Grave abuse’
As a rule, AHRD should be the region’s “strong voice for human rights everywhere, because citizens of Asean countries are everywhere, some of them, including Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), are subjected to grave human rights abuses by their employers,” the Manila Times editorial said.
“We hope it is not one of those documents that — true to Asean’s tradition — will state lofty goals but will leave member governments the option of acting or not acting on the matter.” the Manila Times added.
AHRD’s final draft will be reviewed by Asean foreign ministers in June.
Asean has been promising that the AHRD will be a landmark in the democratisation of Asean member countries.
It will be the “road-map for regional human rights development in the region,” vowed Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan.
Asean adopted the Asean Charter in 2007, which paved the way for the drafting of its human rights declaration.
Asean members are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Source: By Barbara Mae Dacanay- Gulfnews.com
...Read more>>>
Chinese General warns US “we will not attack - unless we are attacked”!
CHINA WATCHING CLOSELY
“This is something the Chinese military will have to watch closely”, said one Chinese military official , speaking “off the record” by email communication on Monday.
“China retain the right to defense ourselves against a US attack”, the official said.
Lieutenant-General Ren Haiquan, a People's Liberation Army (PLA) commander.
General Haiquan is also vice-president of the PLA's Academy of Military Sciences in Beijing, who led the Chinese delegation to the Singapore forum, said on Saturday that Washington's planned naval redeployment is neither something "desperately serious" nor something that "doesn't matter".
WE WILL NOT ATTACK FIRST
"We will also improve our military strategy, our national defense and the PLA's fighting ability. We will not attack unless we are attacked," the General told reporters."We have the measures to strike back when fundamental national interests are under threat," he said.
"We still face a very complex, sometimes severe, situation. We will be prepared for all complexities. There's a saying: work for the best and prepare for the worst," said Lt. General Haiquan.
These comments are seen as a warning to certain members of Congress and the entire US military industrial establishment - "don't mess with us in China."
In the China Daily report, Chinese officials indicated it would "improve" the capability of its forces and has the capacity to "strike back" when its "fundamental interests" are under threat.
IS CHINA THE TARGET?
"The shift is not wholly against China, but China is definitely one of its targets”, Wenzhao said.
Tao Wenzhao, from the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said: "What really matters is not the distance to China, but US equipment and activity in the Asia-Pacific region, an area which it regards as less stable than the Atlantic region.”
"Panetta (specifically) mentioned carriers, destroyers and cruisers but what about submarines? Where they are going to be based? Basing them in Pearl Harbor is not as threatening as basing them in Guam. And how are they going to be used?", said Gary Li, a London-based intelligence and military analyst with Exclusive Analysis, a business intelligence agency.
Currently, the US Navy fleet strength of 285 ships is almost evenly divided between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
PHILIPPINES
In addition the US is seeking to pre-positioned about 2,500 US Marines in Australia and there may be a similar arrangement in the Philippines (see RT news report: China infuriated by US-Philippines defense plans RT news report ).
VIETNAM
The US is also seeking to establish a US naval base in Vietnam, which is seen as an effort to threaten China, since there is no other real challenge to US military dominance in the region. It is unclear if Vietnam will grant such permission given the US record on human rights and war crimes abuses, both now and in the past (see article: US seeks to establish a naval base in Vietnam to threaten China see article ).
See also: US warships USS Blue Ridge, the destroyer escorted warship USS Chafee in Vietnam US warships USS Blue Ridge .
Regardless of the repositioning of naval forces and the development of more accurate missiles and weapons, China will always have the ability to devastate the US because of its construction of thousands of underground silos and tunnels housing thousands of Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s) see video: Chinese Nuclear Tunnels, the Underground Great Wall: The DongFeng 21D Chinese Nuclear Tunnels
“In the end the US Naval buildup in the Pacific will be largely ineffective as well as hugely expensive waste of money, because China cannot be threatened in such a way”, said one official at the Pentagon, speaking on the strict condition of anonymity. “You can’t tell that to the people upstairs they have made up their minds already, this is what they want to do”, the official said.
China, it should be understood, maintains one of the largest, best trained armies in the world.
Source: Robert Tilford- Wichita Military Affairs Examiner
...Read more>>>
U.S. Defense Secretary Visits Vietnam
At a news conference Monday with Vietnamese Defense Minister Gen. Phung Quang Thanh, Mr. Panetta said he hopes to strengthen the U.S. defense relationship with Vietnam and help the country’s military to develop.
Mr. Panetta said he and Gen. Quang Thanh discussed additional high-level dialogues and increased visits to Vietnam by U.S. Navy ships.
“The whole thrust of what we discussed in our meeting is to try to take this relationship to a new level,” Mr. Panetta said.
But Vietnam, keen to guard its independence, is moving gingerly. Gen. Quang Thanh said his country wants good relations with both China and the United States.
“We do not depend on any country,” Gen. Quang Thanh said.
U.S. officials have worried in the past about China’s actions in the South China Sea and have said they believe if they don’t help other nations in the region to improve their militaries, China will come to intimidate smaller countries.
Mr. Panetta said the U.S. wants to help strengthen Vietnam and other nations, which he said would help to increase regional stability.
“The goal of the United States is to advance exactly what the general refers to: advance the independence and sovereignty of all nations in the region,” Mr. Panetta said.
For his part, Gen. Quang Thanh said he wants the U.S. to lift its ban on selling Vietnam lethal weapons. Congress currently allows some nonlethal military equipment to be sold to Hanoi.
Selling a wider range of weapons, Gen. Quang Thanh said, would “help fully normalize relations.”
Mr. Panetta did not explicitly comment on the arm-sales issue, but noted that “assistance” to Vietnam will have conditions.
“That additional assistance depends on progress that is being made on human rights and other reforms,” Mr. Panetta said.
Source: The Wall Street Journal June 5,2012 ...Read more>>>