Well, if the US government is going where it looks like they want to with this "Terrorist" designation, Treasury will be able (if so motivated) to put the squeeze (and it is a really effective squeeze, no doubt about it) on any international bank and/or corporate entity moving money internationally.Regarding the terrorist label and finances, one of the main pillars (if you can call it that) of the Eritrean economy is a 2% tax on eritreans in diaspora and more importantly, remittances from Eritreans in diaspora to Eritrea. The latter really keeps ordinary Eritreans afloat. If the terrorist label allowed the Treasury to block these remittances, it would be a huge disaster for normal Eritreans.
I've actually seen (heard, actually) the effects of Section 311, which allows the Treasury Department to designate a bank a "primary money-laundering concern". There isn't a bank out there ANYWHERE that wants to even get within several country miles of getting slammed with that one by Treasury. Consequently, they'll do literally anything to get out from under than one.
The problem I see with this whole issue of designating nations as 'Terrorist" to allow for imposition of these types of financial countermeasures is that it's pretty comparable to the old adage of "When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail." It's one thing to use it against Iran or the DPRK, but "Eritrea"???
I guess if it's "Do this or send in military forces", well, I'll take this option. The reality is that this is just another level of force projection, only it's financial. But it is very effective.
My viewpoint is that there has to be much more to this story for the US government to go to all this effort. And it is a whole lot of effort.
Btw, the story I read on the aircraft into Somalia wasn't a small aircraft, but a rather large 4 engine Russian made cargo charter that was done very covertly. Was not from the UN Monitoring report.
Also, thanks for the link.
Bookmarks