BEFORE leaving Guyana after the just-concluded CARICOM Annual Conference of Heads of Government, Jamaica Prime Minister (PM) Andrew Holness shared with the press corps his concern regarding the potential implications for the Region of United States (U.S) banks cutting ties with regional financial institutions.Understandably, this is an area of major concern for Caribbean governments, the business community, and the peoples — be they resident in the region or abroad.

The PM sounded the warning that “the matter is one that could lock out the Caribbean from the financial system if it is not addressed”, even as he opined that compliant countries should be “rewarded” rather than face the risk of US-based banks pulling out from those countries.

The issue of U.S-based financial institutions clamping down on, and withdrawing business from, the Caribbean has its genesis in efforts to achieve international compliance in fighting money laundering and the financing of terrorism, from which the U.S understandably would want to protect the integrity of its banking system equally as it seeks to insulate its institutions from illegal and terroristic activities.

This issue has been on the front burner for years, and keeps intensifying with each passing day, as is evident in the proliferation of illegal and terroristic activities and the threat they present to lives, businesses and the sovereignty of states.

These matters are frequently in the news, and it should come as no surprise that it was only a matter of time before drastic measures are taken by countries to insulate themselves from unsavoury practices. Equally, the inevitable did not happen overnight, and Caribbean countries have been forewarned and offered technical support to bring themselves into compliance with measures against money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

Guyana has not been spared, and the back and forth between the Executive and the Opposition reaching feverish pitch in 2013 and 2014 can be recalled. The problem of 2013 and 2014 has its genesis in the Bharrat Jagdeo Administration making less than compliant efforts to bring Guyana in line with international standards through laws, institutions and implementations that would have demonstrated this country’s commitment and seriousness in insulating itself from unsavoury practices and holding violators accountable.

Even though Guyana, according to the international Financial Action Task Force, is lumped with nations deemed “High-risk and non-cooperative jurisdictions”, with our status being among the “other monitored jurisdictions,” it apparently was not considered serious enough by past Governments to warrant corrective and remedial action.

When, in 2011, the combined Opposition controlled the Parliament and made known that its support for the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (Amendment) Bill was contingent on an Executive addressing and incorporating some of its views into the national policies and programme, this was ignored. Instead of engaging in real politics, which has honed the art of deal-making, The Executive opted to refuse to entertain any thought in what it felt would have meant ceding ground and looking weak.

In the 21st century, when diversity is being encouraged to be representative and inclusionary, and moreso where the Guyana Constitution requires celebration of same and an inclusionary democracy, it is not unfair to say that refusing to accept and work within these frameworks is backward politics that will do more harm than good to the country and its citizens.

And whereas the incumbent Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs and his predecessor are presently trading views on the status of Guyana, the U.S is moving ahead with severing ties with non-complaint countries.

Some days ago, the Bank of America withdrew the facility of doing business with Guyana. Guyana’s financial deficiencies have been engaging attention since 2009; and in 2013, the country was placed on the Caribbean Watch list.

Since November of last year, the present Government and National Assembly have been moving to put systems in place to bring the country in compliance with anti-money laundering laws. It should be reminded that the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force’s (CFATF) Financial Advisor, in his 2013 visit here, had advised that it requires a minimum of two years for Guyana to be removed from its status, and such is contingent on adherence.

In a global economy, though sovereignty is regarded, when countries are members of associations, regional or international, they are bound to comply with the rules, not only to achieve membership or association, but also the rules that govern the day-to-day conduct of the organisation.

St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ Prime Minister, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves, in his opening address at the Conference, reminded the people of the Region that CARICOM has within its charter the principle of member-states coordinating on foreign policy. International trade cuts across foreign policy. Consequently, should member states stand together in petitioning their case as a single bloc, the region stands to gain more. This gain would not only be to the benefit of individual countries, but also for trade within and out of the region, and the remittances that trade hands among the peoples through spending power.

Reuters (19th May, 2016) said “cutting off personal remittances could have severe consequences in a country like Jamaica, where (remittances) made up 16.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014.” According to World Bank Data for the period 2011-2015, personal remittances contributed 10.6 percent to Guyana’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Jamaica is presently experiencing serious financial problems and has entered the International Monetary Fund Structural Adjustment Programme. The economies of other Caribbean countries, including Guyana, while not necessarily in the same doldrums, are far from performing at their optimum.

We, the people of CARICOM, are in this together, and we have to work it out as one. Not being directly affected based on compliance to CFATF does not insulate from direct impact on the economy, the premium of the U.S currency on trade, and remittances and in alleviating dire economic conditions and boosting respective regional economies.