You Are In: USINFO > Topics > Trade and Economics > Bribery & Corruption

Countries Urged to Use Openness, Transparency Against Corruption

USAID assistant administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, Adolfo Franco. (© AP/WWP)

Countries have to fulfill the expectations brought by democracy by moving toward a truly participatory and transparent system, an official of the U.S. International Development Agency (USAID) says.

Consolidation of democracy cannot be achieved without attacking corruption, one of the most fundamental problems that undermines a democratic system, said Adolfo Franco, USAID assistant administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean.

The fight against corruption is unlikely to be effective without transparency, the rule of law, prosecution of corrupt officials and access for everyone to a judicial system that is functioning well and can render fair and impartial decisions, he said.

Franco made the comments in a Washington File interview June 7 just before the opening of the Fourth Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity (GF IV).  He heads the U.S. delegation to the June 7–10 gathering in Brasilia, Brazil.

All countries need to commit resources and provide political leadership to strengthen democratic institutions -- that is the message the United States is bringing to GF IV, Franco said.

Following is a transcript of the interview:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of International Information Programs
Brasilia, Brazil
June 7, 2005

INTERVIEW

Adolfo A. Franco, Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean
U.S. Agency for International Development

QUESTION: GF IV is an event bringing together ministers, senior policy-makers and good governance experts from around the world, who will discuss issues related to international conventions, money laundering, public procurement, electronic government, conflicts of interest, the role of civil society, and other aspects of anti-corruption and good governance. What kind of outcome do you expect from these discussions?

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FRANCO: I expect the final statement to ratify the principals of the U.N. Conventions Against Corruption [UNCAC]. Such ratification would not in any way supplant this important document, which has been signed by 119 countries, but rather supplement it. It is important that governments make commitments to the UNCAC principles on prevention, criminalization, international cooperation, asset recovery and implementation mechanisms.

But it also is important that civil society monitors whether and how the commitments are being fulfilled and ensures that actions stemming from them lead to actual changes in policies and openness. I expect specific recommendations more than anything else on transparency and openness -- for example, how governments are prepared to handle allegations of corruption and how civil society can analyze the progress in the prosecution of corrupted officials.

QUESTION: A U.S. official told the Washington File earlier that the United States views the implementation of UNCAC and denial of safe haven to corrupt officials as leading themes of GF IV. Do you share this view, and, if so, why are these two topics so important?

FRANCO: I fully share it. UNCAC is very important, but we need some measures to put principles set forward in this document into practice. The idea of no safe haven for corrupted officials, those who corrupt them and their assets is something that our president has been committed to from the outset. He has denied U.S. visas to convicted leaders or officials under house arrest on allegations of corruption. As a result, such officials are obviously not seeking to move to the United States or transfer their assets to our country. By setting an example, we are creating a world standard now.

At USAID I am responsible for Latin America so I would like to bring up the experience of that region in this particular area. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said that 30 years ago a majority of governments in Latin American set a standard for dictators by allowing them to travel freely around the world and by not treating them as pariahs. The fact that this is no longer acceptable, that a corrupted leader is unlikely to find easily a safe haven by virtue of money or access, indicates that the United States and other countries have taken and important step.

QUESTION: But not all countries have taken that step.  And, to become the world standard, the principle of no safe haven for corrupt officials has to be embraced by most countries. Has the Bush administration made progress in working with other countries on this issue?

FRANCO: We have made progress. The denial of safe haven started to be put into practice in the 1980s when the United States and other countries started pursuing assets of notorious dictators in the Philippines and other places. Later countries began including corrupted individuals themselves in those pursuits.

Now, the world is setting accountability as a standard. It is partially a result of U.S. leadership on this issue. But other countries have stepped up to the plate on this issue, too. It would be good to make further progress. It would be beneficial if, for example, intergovernmental discussions at this forum produced pledges to deny any form of safe haven to corrupted officials, those who corrupt them and their assets and to set higher standards in this process.

QUESTION: GF IV is taking place in a South American country and, according to a 2003 international survey, seven of the ten countries with consistently high measures of political corruption are in Latin America. In recent testimony before a Senate committee you said that anticorruption efforts are becoming central to democratic reforms in the region. Do you expect this forum to bring more focus to anticorruption and good governance efforts in the region?

FRANCO: Hosting this forum is fully justified by leadership Brazil has demonstrated in its efforts to fight corruption. I just came from the meeting of the Organization of American States in Fort Lauderdale where we reached an agreement on democracy and the American democratic charter. This agreement concerns in great measure anticorruption and good governance.

Corruption unfortunately is an element of the human condition. It exists in the United States, Canada and all over the world. What make certain democracies stronger than others at any stage of development are institutions and political mechanisms that ensure transparency and commitment to tackle corruption.

So strengthening good governance and attacking corruption is ultimately a question of political will, dedication, resources and mechanisms in place to deal with these issues. These are the things we want to solidify in the region. I know that President Bush will raise these issues again when he meets with hemisphere’s leaders in November in Argentina.

QUESTION: The president has incorporated the fight against corruption in numerous national security and foreign policy initiatives -- including the Millennium Challenge Account, the Group of Eight anti-corruption and transparency initiative, the 2002 National Security Strategy, the Global War on Terrorism, and efforts to promote reform and freedom in the Middle East.  Some of these proposals are relatively new so it is probably to early to tell whether they are working. But looking at those more advanced, do they have a visible impact on how countries or their leaders deal with corruption?

FRANCO: I have seen an impact of those initiatives, and it is dramatic. The fact that the former president of Nicaragua can be scrutinized, put under house arrest and stripped of immunity says something about how different things are today. What happened in Nicaragua would have been unthinkable 20-25 years ago, and even 2-3 years ago it would have been remarkable.

In Costa Rica you have an important high-ranking official that in the past would have sought a safe haven in another country, had an access to governments of other countries and moved freely. Now, he is under scrutiny. Mexico is another country that has made enormous progress on those issues.

This is happening throughout Latin America because societies demand just that and because the political will is there and because institutional mechanisms, although still weak, are working. In general, it is no longer acceptable for officials in most of Latin America to simply carry on without regard to the rule of law and to conduct themselves in a way that is outside the scope of what is legally permissible and simply say, well, that was something that was done when I was in office.

The silver lining now is that accountability, once put into place, survives a transition from one government to another. But accountability is there only when scrutiny is intense and premised on a set of laws, rules and regulations. That countries in the region have made significant progress on both issues is a remarkable development.