Transcripts For CSPAN3 Terrorism Financing 20170713 : vimars

At the end of the day the resolution was we were going to do everything in our power to assist in freeing hostages short of paying ransom. It will make them demand more ransoms than it is to the detriment of americans everywhere. The second piece of that is we work to adopt a similar policy. Right now just the uk has a similar policy. There was one from a couple years ago trying to spur others to adopt a similar approach. It is a terribly difficult issue, but the you know, i think the policy is sound and the repore that is apparently due calling out countries that pay ransom, i think is a worthwhile step. We have a question here in the second row. I guess youre up again. Im wondering kind of what role secretary tillerson have been having in washington with diplomats. Maybe any dialogue and also if you think military escalation would be too, you know, it would be too far if it would be on the table still from the perspective of these countries. Maybe i can take this one. And we have troops on both sides and interests on all sides of this. So i dont see it going that way and i dont think its in anybodys interest including the parties who feel so on both sides of this equation to move towards the military escalation. In terms of the u. S. Line one of the criticisms you have heard there have been mixed messages. You had the state department calling for the calming of the waters, resolution calmly, what seems to be a firmer embrace of the saudis and its more of a tougher stance. It is the role of peacemaker. It is not because we want to be the moral giants here but because we have fundamental interests at play short and long term. It means having the countries resolve these issues. If we are smart about it making this about ownership of these issues long term by these countries. If the countries in the region are serious about dealing with terrorist financing, if they are serious about being dangerous or risky then there are things they need to be doing. If we are worried about payment of ransom that continues to fuel their operations theres a lot that can be done with all of countries. Y i think we would be taking proactive measures to not only resolve issues but think forward about how it actually improves things that are inherent in our National Security interests. I think certainly theres a lot of discussions here in washington around these issues, lots of attention by all of the gulf partners. Those are two different problems and its important to draw the distinction between them. That being said it will set aside state sponsorship for the time being. I think governments have a responsibility to govern their population, their citizens and those who reside in their country. That doesnt mean that the government is responsible for everybody at every moment of the day but at the same time if there is a conscious decision taken by the government to be lax in the application of existing laws or not to enact laws that criminalize. It has historically been the problem in cutter. It has been the problem in kuwait. As we have mentioned there has been progress in both jurisdictions and in enacting and enforcing laws so they are better than they have been historically, but at the same time there is no question there is no progress that could be made. Could i just touch on this . I think its a critical question. One is how do you define the terrorist group itself . It is where it is injected into the current debate. Its an important question. To davids point its a whole spectrum of support. And the challenge here is we have had it to say theres either state sponsorship or there isnt. There really is quite a bit here. There is on one end individuals who are doing things on their own and a government trying to prosecute it. Certainly the u. S. Has had individuals supporting terrorism. You have that end of the spectrum. The other end is states having the budget the support of terrorist groups. Its a line item in their budget. Theres no question ant bout it. Theres that and theres everything from in between from competence to neglect to soft support. I think we we have to be careful to not allow actors to kind of fall behind the shield of sort of the vagaries of these definitions and the spectrum. It is very important to have clear discussions about what we are talking about. Who is it that we are talking about to terrorists, why are we doing this and to what extent can the government actually effect this . This is really important. It is often a question to the point your question. It is often more complicated than that. And just to follow on that thought, what part of the spectrum here is who is a terrorist organization. So does it get to the question that she was asking earlier about whats happening in the gulf right now. Clearly the cutter ys view in the gulf and elsewhere. Now, i think they would say that the distance between Muslim Brotherhood and terrorists is vanishingly thin. So if you have just hypothetically state sponsorship you could understand the state saying we are supporting a muslim corporation, not a terrorist group. As we look at whats happening in the gulf right now another one of the dimensions thats really important to bear in mind is that this is i think fundamentally the role of iz islam and how you define what is a legitimate Political Organization from what is a, you know, wolf in sheeps clothing, terrorist organization, but not. Okay. Yes. Hi. Thanks. Great panel. I have two questions. The first on the list that katherine brought up, the 49 individuals and entities that were designated by the arab states, do you see it overlapping with lists that you might have seen or names you might have seen while you were at treasury . And then, you know, some say actually that its better for the u. S. For designated terrorists to be, you know, playing pingpong and no other than making trouble. How do you respond to that argument . So there are many individuals not designated by the u. S. Or the u. N. They both have their separate lists and there are some not designated by the u. S. I think that, you know, countries have the ability and if not the requirement to develop the capability to have these sorts of lists so they can identify and send clear messages to their domestic population about who it is off limits to deal with in terms of Financial Transactions and things of this sort. So i think as i said earlier thats something cutter could do. They could develop their own list to provide clarity on who they see is fitting, you know, that definition within their own jurisdiction. One of the things that these lists do in a domestic sense is it could facilitate further action from Law Enforcement perspective. The u. N. Level designation have obligations to implement travel bands and freeze Funds Associated with those. So i think im sorry, what was the second question . I have it. It is a really important question. It is the taliban office, it is u. N. Designated individuals. So it raises an interesting question, is it important to have individuals where you can monitor them, communicate with them, have a channel to those organizations if you desire to have that communication. Thats a really important question. You know, something i have about is if the cutteries are doing this and doing it in a way theres kind of an understanding that look, we want a place where maybe theres a negotiation happening. We want it to happen in a safe place. Maybe thats okay, but maybe that shouldnt be just a cuttery decision. Maybe it should be a much more open decision made with its neighbors as well as other key partners this is a regional set of issues and how you deal with things like funding for humanitarian purposes into things like gaza. We want people to have homes. If thats that case what does that mean . I think, you know, maybe one of the constructive things that comes out of this is a more collective sense of how do we solve some of these problems and it ultimately looks a lot like it does not. It is with International Approval and with other checks and balances that makes it much more comfortable for my neighbors. I am always searching for a constructive way forward. The cutteries portray themselves as the switzerland of the gulf. It is an interesting model in the finance world. For, you know, a long time switzerland was a playground for, you know, for a whole manner of people who have elicit funds. The International Community got together and said, you know, enough. We are not going to let you have numbered accounts. You have an important world but i think that exact same model could be applied in slightly different context. Have i a question. You talked earlier about the Bush Administration looking at the Muslim Brotherhood through different were there any that it was businesses and companies and organization that are channelling money everywhere including cutter and turkey . Could you expand this . Giving the fact that it is never ever suffered a terrorist attack. Yes. Its a great question. I think, again, as we look at the world through the lens of elicit financing you begin to see ties that you wouldnt otherwise see. Looking at the Muslim Brotherhood there is a concern. So the keynotes and national manifestations as a result. So we very much were focused on it. In fact a couple of the designations included individuals who were supporting al qaeda who were also Muslim Brotherhood members. And who were subject to International Sanctions as a result. And so the answer to your question is, yes, we are worried about it. The approach was to not try to isolate the entirety of the organization with all of the manifestations but to identify where there were problematic connections to Material Support to terrorism. It is not to designate all of their members. I think it followed in the ob a obama administration. Not all elements are alike in the Muslim Brotherhood. Not all should be handled the same way and i think it creates flew answ knew answer nuance and complication. Yeah. Ill start off to add on here. So my understanding is the last several years cutter has prosecuted a few individuals for terrorist financing and has, you know, the effectiveness point become more effective in implementing the laws and regulations in place to combat terrorist financing. Theres still people there. Just a brief digression here. After the speech calling out for terrorist financing i did travel on several occasions and met with others and to encourage them to improve their performance. It was abundantly clear to me that they knew exactly who was raising funds that their jurisdictions, where they were, what they were doing, how they were doing it, how the money was being moved. So although there has been progress it has been some progress. It was made in the last few years in going after sort of low hanging fruit that was available to them in kuwait. It remains more progress, more fruit that could be harmful. So i could add a little bit on the specifics even though there is not that many specifics. I think this is one of the things, what we know about what cutter has done in the last couple of years is primary by from u. S. Government reports of it. So even though there has been in resent weeks they are not publicizing that right away. Its not clear if there is a reflection of an incomplete doing it or if theres, you know, thats what i have heard about publicizing this or security concerns because thats information and things like that. There has not been a lot of public information. It is who was convicted by terrorist financing in 2008 and serve ad a very brief term. Go wetwo were convicted or one s convicted. There were a couple of convictions. None of them are imprisoned. The concern there is although they say they are under extensive supervision that we have seen before that there has been some amongst this it has been an ongoing issue. I think these actions have come under significant pressure from the u. S. And what the signal has been an immerging theme here is kind of ownership rather than responding to significant pressure that what i think is to see it act in a way that sends a clear message that this is their acting of their own to take care of what the u. S. Is seeing as probla asproblematic. If you have any closing thoughts you are welcome to do so. No obligation. We can move on from here. First of all let me thank our host again. I have learned a lot. I hope you all have as well. Ill start with this theme. The issues of terrorist financing will continue to be relevant. It will play out but it will continue to be a fundamental issue when you look at u. S. Policy in the middle east, how we think about definition of terrorist groups, how we deal with the underlying idealologies that animate terrorist organizations, what happens post because i think we will see the defeat on the battlefield but thats not the end of the story and how it then gets resolved and the context becomes critical. I think it has a leading role to play in not only resolving these issues currently but setting the strategy for how to deal with more and more complicated issues as terrorism evolves over time. It is for the community and for this administration. Thank you for your time. So ill just echo things for organizing this and for conversation. I will just hold the lens way back for a second. It is a hugely important issue. It is one we need to continue to work on. I think we need to recognize two fundamental facts. One is that what the underlying causes. It is something that we need to address not just the terrorist fa financing issues. There are issues in the middle east and elsewhere that require long term serious strategy. We cant ignore that port of the world. We cant bomb it into submission. We need to figure out a way to address those issues. The second is that that there is sm some respects an increasingly weakening link between terrorist financing and terrorist acts. I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that even as we do a better job and hopefully well continue to do a better job there is a tail to terrorist organizations capacity to conduct terrorist attacks and is also i think an increasing Movement Towards not the centralized directed attack but to the inspired attack and we as a country need to recognize that and be resilient. We need to be strong as a country. We need to not overreact. We need to be sensible in howwee address this problem. It is critically important. I think david introduced hours we could spend another hour and a half discussing. I think i would echo that and say that i think that the need to follow the money is kind of more acute than ever because of the instability that david mentioned and the adaptability to exploit areas but also because of the role of Financial Intelligence can play when youre talking about even attacks that arent expensive, even attacks that are small cells or directed at least in any way, mapping out relationships are very important. I think getting back to the question of instability and post isis it makes me think that, you know, its a question of governance. I think something we have come to understand better is how an important part of that is regulation of the Financial Sector and partnering between those regulators and Law Enforcement and Intelligence Services to be able to have when you have those areas, you know, have them that they can attract the investments and to help with development but also keep the bad actors out of that realm. I think if we can try to look beyond this, you know, the trend right now of these exploitation thats where we need to be thinking in the future. Thank you again to the states for hosting this panel. You all have been very kind. Now its our turn to thank you. We really do thank you so very much and we hope you come back. Next up we take you to the senate banks committee. They will be hearing from janua testifying about the countrys economy and the policy report and its potential impact. She testified yesterday before the House Financial Services committee and during her questioning yesterday she expressed concern about the National Debt which is approaching