inside the glass house

Lanka still dragging feet over UN anti graft treaty
NEW YORK-- The widely circulated legendary stories about the late Mobutu Sese Seko, president of the former Zaire, are worth repeating-- at least for posterity.

Described as one of the world's most corrupt leaders, who was mollycoddled by Western nations with their own hidden political agendas, Mobutu was brazen about his crooked ways.

In his frequent trips to the US, including his regular visits to his barber in New York city, he was once accompanied by several planeloads of political cronies and their families on a weeklong vacation to Disneyland.

As it later transpired, the lavish extravaganza was really funded by American taxpayers because the funds for the trip to the land of Mickey Mouse had been pilfered from US aid to Zaire earmarked to meet the needs of the country's poor.

At a press conference, Mobutu was once asked whether it was true he was the second wealthiest political leader in the world. A seemingly outraged Mobutu shouted back: "It's a lie. It's a lie,' and then added with a straight face, "I am only the third richest."

Paradoxical as it seems, Mobutu implicitly admitted he was both corrupt-- and honest about it. But how many of us have seen an honest, corrupt politician in our own neighbourhoods?

Surprisingly, at the United Nations, more and more countries are declaring their pledges to fight corruption-- either under pressure from donors or through political conviction.

By the end of last week, the number of signatories to the landmark UN Convention Against Corruption had risen to over 100-- in less than three months since it was opened for signature on December 9.

Perhaps the most pleasant surprise is the decision by some of the world's most corrupt nations-- as measured by an index compiled by Transparency International-- to sign the anti-corruption treaty.

These include Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Paraguay, Angola, Kenya, Uganda and Haiti-- all of whom have signed the treaty despite their notoriety as corrupt nations.

But a notable absentee from the list continues to be Sri Lanka which has declared its intention to "wipe out" corruption but claims that the Attorney General is studying the convention. How much time does the A-G's department need to figure out the implications of the convention? Or did the government go soft on the UN treaty?

If some of the world's corrupt nations have pledged internationally to fight malfeasance, why is Sri Lanka dragging its feet, particularly if it has nothing to hide?

President Kumaratunga, who now presides over a caretaker cabinet and has vowed to crackdown on corruption, has the legitimate right to authorize the signing of the treaty by Sri Lanka.

In her capacity as both head of state and head of government, she can designate either a special representative or the Permanent Representative at the UN to formally sign the treaty.

Legally, she can designate anyone in the Sri Lankan Mission to the UN-- including junior diplomats or even a member of the non-diplomatic staff-- to ink the convention.

If she does, the president will not only upstage a government that was clearly playing for time by not signing the treaty, but also signal her own bona fides in fighting corruption in the country.

Last week, her own Media Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, was his eloquent self when he said: "Those individuals who wallow in corruption should be drummed out of politics. Let us be partners in that campaign. The business community will no doubt bear in mind that it takes two to make a corrupt transaction. Be not one of them."

The convention, which has been described as the first global legally binding treaty against corruption, needs 40 ratifications to enter into force. Given the complexities of the convention, it could take an year or two before it becomes law.

Although Western nations are not free from corruption, most of them have joined the long list of signatories, including Britain, the US, Australia, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand and Switzerland.

The argument that corruption is mostly pervasive in developing nations has been publicly refuted. "Corruption was not limited to Third World countries but often had its roots in the entrepreneurial practices in liberal democracies," Antonio di Pietro, an Italian magistrate once argued. "Corruption is like a coin," he said, "It has two sides: one side is the corruptor and the other the corrupted."

Asked how Sri Lanka could benefit by signing the convention, the head of the UN Treaty Section Palitha Kohona says: First and foremost, this will convey an important message to all concerned that the state concerned is willing to pro-actively tackle the debilitating cancer of corruption not only domestically, but if necessary, by invoking the international cooperative mechanisms provided under the convention.

Secondly, he said, the message that participation in the convention will convey to the donor community will be invaluable given the well recognized and worrying drain on a country’s assets through corruption. "In many countries," he said, "the legitimacy of public institutions has been undermined by the suffocating claws of corruption." And Sri Lanka is no exception to this rule.

Back to Columns