President Jagdeo was appropriately nonplussed that certain agencies here were delinquent in gathering information which was required in the talks between Guyana and the US on 141 persons who are to be deported here. The failure and sloth of the agencies resulted in the enforcement of visa sanctions by the US on government officials, employees and their immediate families.

This scourge of tardiness and dithering is one that affects a number of endeavours that the government as a whole is responsible for. One of the more insidious examples of this is the activation of the legislation against money laundering. It was only on September 14 in these editorial columns that we bemoaned again the inexplicable delay in enlivening the legislation which had been on the books since February 2000 after being first introduced in Parliament in October of 1998 - more than three years ago.

Days before the editorial appeared, the earth-shattering attack on the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon had been executed and the shockwaves from this massive quake raced from the New York epicenter.

Stunned by the audacious attacks by the terrorists, the United States and Britain have now ratcheted up the drive to choke off financing of the terrorists' network and have issued much tougher warnings about countries which, through absence of effective legislation and poor enforcement, offer juicy opportunities for terror money to circulate and hide. A bill now in the US congress will give the Treasury Department new powers to target foreign countries and banks including banning US banks from doing business with them.

It would be a safe bet that it was the September 11 assault and the declaration of war by the US on terrorism and its funding artery that has galvanised this administration to throw off the shackles of somnolence. What else could explain the one-week mandate given by the President to a hastily assembled task force to activate the legislation and name the crucial supervisory authority when the matter has lain quiescent since the acrimonious passage of the law in February 2000 - 20 months ago.

It is one of the enduring faults of this administration. It waits until it is backed into a corner before acting. The anti-money laundering legislation could have easily been mobilised to create a protective moat around the financial sector. As it stands, we are starting from scratch and until the law is `weaponised' Georgetown will have a significant osmotic pull for money from drugs and other illegitimate activities as other countries crack down even harder. Moreover, regional efforts are only as effective as the weakest link in the chain.

After having numerous opportunities over the last decade, Guyana is only now scrambling to join the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF). If it does join, it will be the 27th member. Twenty-six other countries have seen the wisdom of signing up including Trinidad and Tobago - where the headquarters is based - Barbados, Jamaica, Haiti, Panama, Suriname and Venezuela. Guyana is one significant holdout in the Caribbean. The other, Colombia, has had a close working relationship but has not acceded because of incompatibility of CFATF provisions with domestic laws.

CFATF had its genesis in meetings in Aruba in 1990 and Jamaica in 1992, the latter leading to the 20-point Kingston declaration on money laundering which has guided the organisation. There is also an influential support group comprising the US, Canada, the UK, France and The Netherlands.

There are many crucial training areas we could have already benefited from if we had acted with greater dispatch. These include help with drafting/amending anti-money laundering and related asset-forfeiture legislation, programmes for prosecutors, judges and magistrates, phasing out police prosecutors and replacing them with legally trained professionals, strengthening financial intelligence and investigation units (we are now trying to form one) and a host of other areas. CFATF also conducts evaluations of members' efforts and identifies weaknesses. Why we have not yet subscribed to the organization is a considerable mystery.

The truth about money laundering here and the circulation of proceeds from other illegal practices is that nobody knows for sure the extent and the methods. That is an even more frightening scenario than having some awareness of it. Conspicuous spending and the expansion of business in certain areas in the midst of poor economic circumstances is the only evidence - circumstantial - that something is amiss.

The danger of having a significant portion of the economy underpinned by laundered money is well known. It creates distortions and kinks in an open economy and could lead to disastrous repercussions when the plug is pulled.

While there is now hope for this law, the public will watch closely whether the words of the administration will be matched by robust deeds. Given the history of the law doubts will linger.