PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECURITY COUNCIL MONITORING GROUP ON AL-QAIDA, TALIBAN SANCTIONS

PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECURITY COUNCIL MONITORING GROUP

ON AL-QAIDA, TALIBAN SANCTIONS

The recent visit to five countries by the monitoring group established by the Security Council to oversee sanctions against Al-Qaida and Taliban had yielded a wealth of information, its Chairman told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference today.

Heraldo Muñoz of Chile, Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1267 (1999), known as the “1267 Committee”, said that that officials in Belgium, Liechtenstein, Italy, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had delivered a great deal of information.  Difficult questions had been asked and tough issues addressed, he said.

One of the main issues arising from discussions with European officials, he said, was a definition of the freezing of non-financial assets.  While many bank accounts had been frozen in Europe, a common definition on what constituted economic resources was still lacking.  As a result, it had been difficult to seize properties.  European officials had informed the group, however, that they were close to agreeing on a draft that would solve the question of definitions.

A source of concern for Europe Union representatives, however, was access to justice, he said.  While the monitoring group’s “List” was seen as a powerful instrument, including individuals on the List was seen as questionable, as it left open the possibility of including innocent individuals with no links to terrorism.  Even with the mechanism of “delisting”, Europeans wanted a mechanism that provided for appeal by an independent body.  In Europe, there was a great deal of concern regarding the due process of law and many decisions on the freezing of accounts had been challenged in European courts.  There was a fear that if any of those challenges were won, the sanctions regime would be put into question further complicating matters.

The travel ban in the Schengen area had also been discussed, he said.  When he asked why names of individuals were not included on the Schengen list, he had been told that it was mainly for political reasons.  Each country owned the information that they placed on the Schengen information system and there was no agreement among countries of the European Union regarding the Schengen list.

In Italy, the Committee had met with economic, interior, justice, foreign relations and central bank officials.  They had described two pieces of legislation, one aimed at financial security and another on the strengthening of law enforcement regarding terrorism.  The issue of Youssef Nada and Idris Nasredin had also been discussed.  They lived in Italy and had been able to travel to Liechtenstein, where they had attempted to change the names of companies whose assets were frozen.  Their names had been put on the List on the evidence that they were financing a mosque in Milan that was linked to Al-Qaida.  The investigation was continuing, and Italian officials were aware that they controlled property in Italy.  Mr. Nasredin, they were told, was apparently in Morocco.

In Liechtenstein, they had been told that Liechtenstein could not be seen separately from Switzerland, he said.  Liechtenstein’s legislation was heavily influenced by Switzerland and Austria.  Unfortunately, the judicial authorities had decided some two weeks ago that Mr. Nada could, once again, be a liquidator of his own enterprises.  That decision had been made independently of the courts.  The freezing of assets was first administrative and then judicial.  Liechtenstein was keen on keeping a clean slate on all investments, as its survival depended on not having bad investments, namely, terrorist financing.

In Pakistan, the group had had excellent meetings with members of the ministries of the interior, finance and foreign affairs, as well as the national police.  Pakistan’s domestic legislative framework had been improved, certain extremist organizations banned and a strong arms control campaign developed.  Pakistan’s Finance Minister had recommended that the Committee go beyond the freezing of bank accounts.  Only a foolish terrorist at this point would put deposits under his or her own name.  Instead, the Committee should concentrate on charities, informal banking, and couriers carrying money that did not follow legal banking channels.  Some countries, such as the United States, had a limit of $10,000.  He suggested that the Committee recommend a maximum money amount to be carried by individuals crossing borders.

Referring to criticism regarding border controls with Afghanistan, Pakistani officials informed the Committee that they had made a great deal of efforts in that regard, he said.  Any failure on Pakistan’s part had to do with a failure of capability, as they were doing all they could with the resources they had.

Pakistani officials had also highlighted that the main Al-Qaida leaders had been detained and arrested in Pakistan, he added.  Pakistan had lost many soldiers and policemen in those operations, which reflected their commitment to the matter.  The ministers for the interior and foreign affairs had informed the team that they would submit names for the List.  That represented a major fruit of the Committee’s visit to Pakistan.  While Pakistani officials had recognized that there was a problem with charities, they were strictly controlling them.  Although some were considered terrorist entities, there was agreement that not all charities could be placed under the same umbrella.

In Saudi Arabia, the delegation had met with the ministers for finance, the vice-minister for the interior and the acting minister for foreign affairs.  They had been informed of a new anti-money-laundering law that had entered into force on 1 December.  The Saudi Arabia Monetary Agency had issued a comprehensive circular on rules governing anti-money-laundering and terrorist financing, which provided detailed and useful information.  Saudi officials had also informed the Committee that both bank accounts and property had been frozen.

Regarding charities, the Committee had been told that Saudi Arabia had new and more stringent rules and that a supervisory authority was in the final stages of approval.  They had also decided to halt the collection of monies in Mosques.  Regarding Hawala, they were told that all such transactions were illegal unless going through official channels.  Saudi officials were implementing an easy and inexpensive system in which banks were required to set up centres in various neighbourhoods so that foreign workers could transfer money abroad inexpensively without going through Hawala.  Those centres would operate solely for transferring money.

He had asked the Minister for the Interior if he could submit a list of the names of individuals being investigated in connection with the Riyadh bombings.  Many of them were still being investigated in other countries, and a decision would have to wait.  They would consider submitting the names of other individuals whose investigations were already concluded.

Also in Saudi Arabia, the Committee had had an interesting discussion on ideology, he said.  They were told that the fight against Al-Qaida and the Taliban would not be won through security measures or by cutting financing, but by confronting the ideological component of terrorism.  Al-Qaida and the Taliban were an extremist version and distortion of the Koran.  The main currents of Islam were moderate and rejected terrorism.

Responding to a question on the issue of a lack of definition on economic resources in Europe, he said that the Committee did have such a definition.  He believed that the problem would soon be solved, as the Europeans had a draft document containing a definition similar to the Committee’s guidelines.  Regarding an appeals mechanism, he said the Committee had not yet formally discussed the issue.

Responding to another question, he said the Committee had the task of overseeing the full and effective implementation of sanctions.  As long as it had doubts, it would continue to ask questions of the various countries.

Given that the Committee was not an intelligence agency, how was it able to cross check its information? a correspondent asked.  One recommendation, he replied, was that the Committee be given more investigative powers.  Whether there was agreement on that would need to be determined.

Asked whether the Committee had been able to uncover terrorist money trails, he said that it had not been able to do so.

Why was the Committee devoting so much attention to two individuals? a correspondent asked.  Responding, he said the Committee had decided that the monitoring group could carry out case studies.  Mr. Nada, for example, provided such a case study.

Countries had to be much more serious about implementing sanctions, he added.  The Committee felt that it needed stronger measures –- “measures with teeth” -- so that countries could sanction institutions that were not in compliance.

* *** *