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).