Global nag

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Why do non-Americans so dislike Americans or, at least, the American government? Could it be because the U.S. State Department appears to think its mission is to be rude, insulting and condescending?

This month, the State Department has set a new record by managing to insult the citizens of 123 different lands at one time in the "International Narcotics Control Strategy Report: Volume II, Money Laundering and Financial Crimes."

The 450-page report discusses what other countries are doing to reduce money laundering and financial crimes, which is fine. But then the authors go on gratuitously lecturing each of the countries by name about how they could do things "better." To understand the total hypocrisy of the State Department nags, it is important to remember that more money laundering goes on in the United States than anywhere else, and that the U.S. is the world's biggest market for illegal drugs.

The Report, produced by the global nannies and nags at State, is filled with endless demands that other countries do a better job enforcing their laws, pass more laws, sign more international treaties and engage in some practices that would be illegal and unconstitutional in the U.S. Many of the demands would not meet a reasonable cost-benefit test, and are superfluous and banal -- "be less corrupt."

The authors attack friend and foe alike, as if corruption and incompetence did not exist in Washington and at the FBI, CIA, etc. Could this be a reason many of those at State are considered bullies, hypocrites, and financial imperialists?

Some examples:

The Belgians "should strengthen the adherence to reporting requirements by some nonfinancial entities, such as lawyers and notaries," so says State, while completely ignoring the importance of lawyer client confidentiality.

State says, "The U.K. should develop legislation and implement regulations to ensure that the gaming and betting industries are completely covered in the same manner as the financial and designated nonfinancial businesses and professions." It perhaps did not occur to the folks at State that the British have a longstanding democracy and can figure out perfectly well which laws and regulations they would like to live under.

"China should provide for criminal penalties for noncompliance with the requirements that financial institutions perform customer identification, due diligence and recordkeeping." So here we have people in the U.S. government saying a police state needs to have more "criminal" penalties for crimes many legal experts believe should only be civil offenses in the U.S. and elsewhere.

To the Germans they say, "Amend legislation to waive the asset-freezing restrictions in the EU Clearinghouse for financial crime and terrorism financing, so that the freezing process does not require a criminal investigation." Perhaps, the folks at State Department forgot there are certain historical reasons why the Germans now insist on strong legal protections against a potentially abusive state.