* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Put more simply: talk the talk, and, slowly, one walks the walk.
By Stella Dawson
Chief Correspondent for TrustLaw
The best thing to say about the good governance and the rule of law debate at the United Nations last week is “at least they are talking about it”. Faint praise indeed, but it does mark progress.
For too long, governance was ignored. Foreign aid served as a geo-political tool of the superpowers to keep a country tethered to one or another ideological camp, a cynical usage that has fostered corruption on a grand scale. Left unmentioned was that corruption undermines governance by destroying public trust in political and legal institutions, sows discord, worsens economic disparities, destabilizes a country and fuels poverty. Without rule of law, expect violent upheaval. The Arab Spring uprisings stand as testimony.
In this sorry merry-go-round, developed countries have been doubly complicit. As kleptocratic leaders feed off foreign aid, diverting billions of dollars into their private bank accounts and those of their cronies while their citizens suffer, money skimmed from Western donors has bought fancy sports cars, glitzy oceanfront mansions, fine art and posh penthouses--often recycling the stolen aid money back into the bank accounts of donor countries.
An old story, perhaps, but take a look at how it plays out in Afghanistan.
Frank Vogl in his new book “Waging War on Corruption” released this month cites official reports that Afghan government, business and organised crime elites shipped $4.6 billion in cash through Kabul airport to Dubai and other foreign destinations in 2011 – a stunning amount when you consider that is almost as much as the total national budget for Afghanistan. All the while, 90,000 foreign troops were based there trying to rebuild a nation shattered by war.
Confronting these contradictions -- and recognizing the linkage between the rule of law, peace and development -- at least progressed last week in New York.
Justice and respect for international law has been embedded in the charter of the United Nations since its founding in 1945. But the General Assembly’s debate on the Rule of Law last Monday marked the first time the body has discussed how to implement the principle.
Debate foundered over a simple question – “Whose law are we talking about?” Or as Iran’s outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put his view so bluntly: states should not yield to rules imposed "by bullying countries."
The UN ended up with a grab-bag statement that recognized the importance of justice -- a pretty paltry outcome given a year of preparation for the debate and that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon himself had written a landmark report on the subject in 2003.
But talking afterwards with a number of advocacy groups for justice involved in the preparations, they expressed some cautious optimism, cognizant that any campaign of this kind requires taking the long view. Think how long it took for the UN to condemn female genital mutilation.
“At least there is a commitment for member states to continue talking and looking for common ground,” said Param-Preet Singh, senior counsel for the international justice program at Human Rights Watch.
“There isn’t going to be change overnight, but it remains on the agenda and there is talk of taking it to the next level, past 2015 as part of a new set of Millennium Development Goals, and achieving a balance between recognition of international law and national law,” she said.
WALKING THE WALK
At a Thursday session on governance and sustainable economic development hosted by the U.S.-funded aid agency the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) on the sidelines of the UN meetings, newly elected Senegal President Macky Sall described good governance as a central part of his leadership. Presidents installing themselves for life or maneuvering to extend or suspend term limits has been a chronic problem in Africa associated with corruption and instability. Sall said he has kept his campaign promise to reduce the presidential term to five years from seven years, and enforce the two-term limit as mandated in the country’s constitution.
“This is the end of the era of impunity and the beginning of the rule of law,” he said.
Niger’s Prime Minister Brigi Rafini said his country planned similar reforms. Niger has just emerged from a political crisis and military coup triggered by then-President Mamadou Tandja’s attempt to remain in office beyond term limits. The unstable situation prompted MCC to suspend its program with Niger in 2009 and reinstate it only after democratic rule was restored in 2011.
Niger’s new three-year $23 million development compact with MCC incorporates a number of governance reforms: reducing public corruption in the health and education sectors, streamlining the process for starting up new businesses; reducing red tape over land ownership transfer and building permits and bolstering girls’ education.
“We want to promote a full rule of law in Niger,” Rafini said.
Fine words and call it lip service. But donors increasingly are building in mechanisms to pressure for change. MCC is quick to suspend programs if a country fails to meet minimum standards of democratic governance and corruption. Similarly the World Bank will cancel projects and bar contractors when it finds corruption. Last week it agreed to resume funding the $1.2 billion Padma Bridge but only if Bangladesh meets preconditions for rooting out contractor corruption.
Some modern behavioural theorists posit that conceptualizing and verbalizing solutions is a vital step toward changing entrenched patterns of behaviour. Put more simply: talk the talk, and, slowly, one walks the walk.
(Additional reporting by Lisa Anderson)
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
