The importance of ratifying the anticorruption convention

The importance of ratifying the anticorruption convention

Adnan Topan Husodo, Jakarta

Some time ago, on Dec. 9, 2005, the world commemorated
Anticorruption Day. That date was chosen because on Dec. 9, 2003,
in Merida, Mexico, the United Nations inaugurated the Convention
against Corruption. As many as 137 nations signed the convention,
including Indonesia.

The convention marks an important moment in the
acknowledgement of corruption as a transnational crime.
Therefore, the means of exterminating and preventing corruption
demands the cooperation of nations. The crime of corruption is no
longer just a domestic matter for an individual government, but a
global issue that needs to be handled in a spirit of mutual
interest and cooperation.

Without the sense of trust and support among nations in the
fight against corruption, this crime that has the potential to
ruin the fundamentals of national life -- economic, social, and
political -- will continue to haunt the relationship among
nations. The distrust of foreign businessmen of the business
environment in Indonesia is sufficient proof that corruption has
a negative impact on economic relations.

Singapore's reluctance to hand over information about
Indonesian white-collar criminals who find refuge in that country
has caused diplomatic relations to heat up. In short, the
extermination of corruption will not be effective as long as
there isn't any form of international support. The embezzlers can
hoard their loot in other countries, while at the same time
living comfortably. Therefore, the Anticorruption Convention was
born as a form of global concern toward the destructive impact of
corruption.

The global spirit to fight corruption started well before the
UN's Anticorruption Convention. On March 29, 1996, the
Anticorruption Convention among American States was signed in
Caracas, Venezuela. This convention was signed by 23 of the 35
members of the Organization of American States (OAS). The
convention is also now upheld in Bolivia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela, who all ratified it later.

Aside from signing the convention, at the meeting in Lima,
Peru, in June 1997, the General Assembly of the OAS also signed a
Plan against Corruption. OAS cooperates with the local community
and international organizations -- including the World Bank,
Inter American Development Bank, and the OECD -- in preventing
and controlling corruption.

The principles of corruption extermination as written in the
UN Anticorruption Convention basically outlines several important
issues that have to be regulated by signatory countries.

First, the signatories to the convention must uphold a
national ruling on the prevention of corruption by building,
implementing, and coordinating effective anticorruption policies
that involve the participation of the community.

Second, signatories must establish an independent body that
runs and oversees anticorruption policies adopted by the
Anticorruption Convention.

Third, signatories must fix their bureaucratic systems, with
each government guaranteeing the establishment of a corruption-
free bureaucracy and government.

Fourth, all signatories must improve the level of integrity,
honesty, and responsibility of its public officers, which
includes the implementation of standard procedures that puts
directness, honor and efficiency at the forefront.

Fifth, signatories must establish a procurement system for
government goods and services, and also a judicial system that is
clean.

Sixth, signatories commit themselves to prevent corruption in
the private sector by requiring transparent accounting systems
and reporting.

Seventh, signatories will involve the community in the
prevention and extermination of corruption.

Next, signatory countries also have to prevent embezzlement,
and to criminalize and prosecute corruption including the
confiscation and freezing of wealth gained by means of
corruption; to provide protection programs for witnesses and
experts and compensation for corruption victims; building of a
system of corruption extermination, including with financial
institutions; establishment of bank secrecy systems that do not
hamper corruption extermination; organize jurisdiction in the
handling of corruption cases; implement international cooperation
in the process of eradicating corruption including issues
regarding law and technical assistance; to extradite offenders;
and to recover assets, among many other things.

Sad to say, although Indonesia signed the convention on Dec.
18, 2003, it hasn't ratified it. As a country plagued by
corruption, Indonesia should not need to think twice about this.
By ratifying this convention, several benefits would be gained.

First, Indonesia will show that it has the commitment and
seriousness to eradicate corruption. As we all know, the
international community (PERC studies 2005 and TI 2005) has
placed Indonesia among the most corrupt countries therefore
rendering it unsafe for investment.

Second, by ratifying the convention, Indonesia could implement
an international standard for eradicating corruption, which
includes a legal framework and strategy.

Third, Indonesia could press the international community to
cooperate in eradicating corruption regarding issues related to
extradition of offenders, mutual legal assistance, and asset
recovery.

Though there have been bilateral efforts by the government to
negotiate extradition and asset recovery with governments in
Singapore, Switzerland and China, these have not been undertaken
within the framework of international law so such efforts have
been less than effective.

So, in fact, there are no more excuses for why the Indonesian
government cannot ratified the UN Anticorruption Convention.

The writer works for Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW).