The phrase ‘No Funds, No Terror’ underscores the crucial role of financing in sustaining terrorism globally. The emergence of groups like the Popular Front of India (PFI), leveraging constitutional provisions meant for citizen welfare, exemplifies the misuse of legal frameworks to shield nefarious intentions. Post-implementation of the FCR Act 2020, new methods like ‘pocket funding’ have emerged, posing challenges to counter-terrorism efforts.
In a bid to tackle this menace, India proposed the establishment of a permanent secretariat for “No Money for Terror (NMFT)” on November 19, 2022. Union Home Minister Amit Shah emphasised the need for a unified definition of ‘terrorism’ and ‘terror financing’ across nations. Furthermore, he called for stringent measures to prevent non-profit organisations (NPOs) from propagating terror ideologies, stressing the importance of global cooperation in combating terrorism financing.Registration cancellations under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) have witnessed significant fluctuations from 2011 to 2019, with close to 20,000 cancellations occurring in 2012, 2015, 2017, and 2019 combined. The highest spike occurred in 2015, with 10,003 cancellations, marking a notable trend. However, subsequent years saw a decrease in cancellations compared to the peak in 2015. Tamil Nadu emerged as the state with the highest number of FCRA registration cancellations between 2011 and 2019, totalling 2575, followed by Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. Conversely, states like Jammu & Kashmir, Chhattisgarh, and Himachal Pradesh reported the lowest numbers of cancellations during this period.
The trend across states reflects a pattern where cancellations peaked in 2012 and remained highest in 2015 before gradually declining in subsequent years. This highlights the need for continued vigilance and enforcement measures to ensure compliance with FCRA regulations nationwide.
How Countries deal with this issue:
United States
The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), 22 USC § 611 et seq., is a disclosure statute in the United States. It mandates individuals acting as agents of foreign principals to publicly disclose their relationship and activities, ensuring transparency in influencing US public opinion, policy, and laws. Certain NGOs, particularly charitable 501(c)(3) organisations, may face operating restrictions under IRS rules, including limitations on self-dealing, lobbying, and political activities, as well as governance restrictions imposed by state laws.
Cambodia
Cambodia’s Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organisations (LANGO), passed in 2015, requires domestic and international NGOs operating in the country to register with the government, report activities and finances, or face fines, prosecution, and shutdowns. The law aims to strengthen the “rule of law” and “national sovereignty” but has faced criticism, notably leading to the expulsion of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) for violating LANGO by operating without proper authorisation.
Russia
Russia’s ‘Foreign agent’ law, adopted in 2012, mandates NGOs receiving foreign funding and engaging in vaguely defined ‘political activity’ to register as ‘foreign agents.’ These NGOs must report foreign donations annually and declare themselves as such, facing prosecution for non-compliance. The law’s scope was extended in 2017 and 2019 to include foreign-funded media and private individuals, imposing criminal liability for political activities deemed against Russian interests.
Hungary
Hungary introduced a draft law aimed at curbing “illegal migration,” requiring registration of foreign-funded organisations deemed to support it. The law enables taxation of their foreign income and restrictions on associated individuals’ movement. NGOs working with refugees and migrants have faced accusations of breaking the law. The government’s justification stems from its “national consultation on the Soros plan,” characterising it as a deceptive questionnaire on immigration in Hungary.
Belarus
Since the adoption of restrictive legislative amendments in 2011, Belarusian civil society groups, especially human rights NGOs, have faced severe limitations on freedom of assembly and association. These amendments, enacted by the lower house of the Belarusian Parliament, imposed mandatory registration of donor aid with criminal liability for violations, restrictions on foreign bank accounts, and penalties for accepting overseas financial support against Belarusian legislation.
Uganda
The Non-Governmental Organisations Act of 2016 in Uganda has been viewed as a means to curtail civil society. Amendments granting state security agency representation on the NGO Board and broad powers to refuse NGO registration have raised concerns. Financial transparency measures, including declaring funding sources to the Financial Intelligence Authority, have been introduced. NGOs must navigate local registration requirements and engage with monitoring committees that include state security officials, facing potential disciplinary actions for non-compliance.
Leave a Comment