inside the glass house

Signing anti-corruption treaty: Is it a symbolic gesture?
NEW YORK - After much public rebuke - and four months of inexcusable dilly-dallying - Sri Lanka decided to come clean last week when it volunteered to sign the landmark UN Convention Against Corruption.

A belated decision, no doubt, judging by the 104 countries that streaked ahead of us to place their signatures on a treaty that was finalized back in October last year after two long years of hard negotiations.

Sri Lanka claims it made "a significant contribution" (and how?) during the negotiating sessions, but still dragged its feet for over four months to sign the treaty. But that's another story.

Still, we may be a long way off before a future - and hopefully an incorruptible - government ratifies the treaty making it an integral part of the law of the land.

The convention needs 30 ratifications to enter into force worldwide - and that may take another 12 months or more (perhaps enough time to continue ripping off the country).

Kenya, once described by Transparency International as one of the world's most corrupt countries, was the first UN member-state to ratify the treaty.

With an election campaign in full swing, the air in Sri Lanka is thick with charges and counter-charges, mostly against politicians on the take. And which politician isn't?

By and large, most politicians - whether in the United States or Sri Lanka - are crooked, unlawfully enrich themselves and their friends, or stash their loot overseas.

The US, in fact, was one of the first countries to sign the treaty in December. At the signing ceremony in Mexico, US Attorney General John Ashcroft admitted that "this document is not enough".

"It must not become an empty symbolic gesture," he warned. "Our governments must translate the words of this convention into effective actions." But how many will?

The Sri Lanka chapter of Transparency International says the Freedom Alliance has pledged to ratify the convention - if and when it is elected to power.

And so, the anti-corruption watchdog body wants all other political parties to make similar public statements and pledges - so that whichever party comes to power, the convention will be ratified by Sri Lanka.

If not, the treaty will be a meaningless exercise to Sri Lanka, particularly if future governments hold up the ratification process We devoted two columns in this newspaper urging the government and also the president to sign the treaty, primarily as only the first step towards a crackdown on corruption in the country. We received several email messages, one of which was from a former Sri Lankan ambassador: "That was a good piece you had in the Sunday Times today," he wrote. "Quite apart from disseminating information on the UN through your column, this kind of article can help improve governance in our country."

The buzzword among Western donors is "good governance": transparency and accountability in running a country. The US, which is planning to dole out billions of dollars in aid under its newly-established Millennium Challenge Account, has laid down strict guidelines. No money will be given to a country that refuses to come clean on corruption.

Perhaps, it may even come up with an additional condition: no aid until and unless you ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption. The screaming newspaper headlines during the past few weeks ("Rid Country of Corrupt Politicians; Most Corrupt Government in History") indicate that fighting corruption has been pushed to the top of the political agenda at the upcoming elections. A fundamental principle of the UN convention is to help track down illgotten wealth that is spirited out of the country through kickbacks. The convention calls it "asset recovery."

The UN says this is particularly important for many developing nations, where high-level corruption has plundered the national wealth and where resources are badly needed for reconstruction and economic development.

In the case of embezzlement of public funds, the confiscated property and money (stashed in foreign banks) will have to be returned to the country requesting it.

As we pointed out last month, perhaps the most pleasant surprise was 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.

Sri Lanka certainly made the right decision in agreeing to sign the treaty. The ratification of the treaty should be the logical next step.

Back to Columns