The Tribune

THE most recent action by the European Union to include The Bahamas in a list of 23 nations categorised as a ‘high risk’ financial crime jurisdiction has brought to the fore once more the issue of our compliance with international standards in the fight against such crime.

Reportedly, we are on this list because we are among those nations that are currently being monitored by the Financial Action Task Force for ‘deficiencies’ in their anti-financial crime defences – and this could lead to our being placed on a ‘blacklist’ of countries that are judged to be ‘non-cooperative for tax purposes.’

To the ordinary person unfamiliar with the details of such a thorny subject, this may seem like a never-ending saga in which our nation is under unremitting pressure from the EU and the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development to satisfy demands that are forever changing so that we may never succeed in meeting their requirements.

It will come as no surprise that the Minister of Finance, Peter Turnquest, has explicitly accepted as a fact of life that the ‘playing field will never be level’ for international financial centres in small territories like The Bahamas which lack the political strength and capacity to take on larger developed countries.

Predictably, the PLP Opposition maintains that the inclusion of The Bahamas in this ‘high risk’ list is due to the FNM government’s incompetence. But the evidence is that the Minnis administration has significantly improved our anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism framework, and there is no doubt it is acting responsibly in pushing through appropriate legislation with the aim of meeting accepted international standards and protecting our cross-border trade and international transactions as well as our reputation as a financial centre.

However, we also need to consider our broader interest as a sovereign nation that takes its own decisions in its own interests. That includes determining the point at which should we make a stand and argue that, while we will always meet our international obligations, we have done enough to take ourselves to the same level as other jurisdictions and are not prepared to take further measures at the behest of the EU and OECD.

Mr Turnquest has made clear the FNM government’s commitment that our nation should remain a leading financial centre while at the same time standing firm in resisting further global regulatory initiatives, and the first evidence of a possible new and tougher approach was last week’s official statement in the name of the Prime Minister described as a response to the EU’s ‘high risk’ list. This not only set out in detail the steps our government has taken in relation to its anti-money laundering/ counter-terrorism financing regime but also drew attention to flaws in the EU’s process of determining the list. Such a statement could be too little too late, but it is a step in the right direction.

In considering its long-term strategy, the government might also do well to heed the recent remarks by the PLP former attorney general, Alfred Sears, suggesting elevating the issue, in concert with CARICOM, to a global level through the United Nations and mounting a legal challenge in the International Court of Justice.

US/NORTH KOREAN SUMMIT CUT SHORT

This week’s Hanoi summit meeting may have broken up with no formal agreement but many commentators had earlier praised Mr Trump for at least bringing Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table for a second time after years of fruitless diplomacy.

Despite its abrupt ending, holding the summit at all was an impressive achievement. As the world looks on with justifiable concern, most people will hope that the dialogue will continue and that denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula will eventually be achieved so that the existing threat to South Korea, Japan and others in the region will be removed or reduced.

Observers of US politics will despair, however, that the deep divisions in Washington prevent bipartisan support for Mr Trump in relation to such an important issue of global national security. Most agree that extreme political polarisation is not good for democracy, but there seems little prospect of even starting to mend the divide any time soon.