International human rights lawyer Richard Goldstone says in an interview that governments must have the political will to pursue wrongdoers if they are to succeed in reducing corruption
BRASILIA (TrustLaw) – Strong enforcement of anti-corruption laws is the the only way to stop looting of public money, said international human rights lawyer Richard Goldstone.
All too often a country has a good judicial system but lacks the political will to pursue wrongdoers, whether it is for grand corruption or crimes against humanity, he said in an interview at the 15th International Anti-Corruption Conference here.
Goldstone has led some of the biggest international investigations in recent history, as South Africa’s Constitutional Court judge after the fall of the apartheid government and as chief prosecutor of the U.N. International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda at the international court in The Hague.
Following is the interview:
Q: Brazil is a country that has democratic institutions and proper anti-corruption legislation. Yet impunity is still a big problem. What needs to be done?
A: Almost without exception, the worst countries in terms of corruption are those with a good justice system. The only way to stop corruption is if there is a real fear of getting caught and punished. People have a low moral threshold when it comes to dealing with public money.
Q: What is the importance of civil society in the fight against corruption?
A: Civil society has developed a political soft power that it has never had before. The Arab Spring is an example of this new empowerment of people. Leaders are having to listen to their voice in every field, including corruption.
Q: What is the impact of international justice in enforcing the rule of law locally?
A: The international community must assist in finding solutions locally, not impose them. Especially the powerful nations like to dictate orders. But if you want people to come with you, you have to consult them.
Q: Providing amnesty was one of the most controversial topics discussed in the panel you participated in at the 15th IACC. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa granted amnesty to 849 people in return for their confessions in the apartheid cases. Is it a legitimate form of justice?
A: I’m against amnesties for big crimes, like very large corruption or war crimes. Talking about amnesty for (Syrian President) Bashar al-Assad, for example, is absolutely unacceptable.
The amnesties granted by the South African Truth Commission were a moral and political compromise. If (former South African president Nelson) Mandela had insisted on what he wanted, he would have had Nuremberg-style trials for the leaders of apartheid responsible for torture and murders, not peaceful negotiation. The commission was the choice of the former oppressed majority, the democratically elected parliament decided on its establishment. No sane person would have enjoyed confessing terrible crimes, so it was a form of punishment and acknowledgment to the victims.
Q: The last trial of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia began last month. How do you analyze its accomplishments?
A: It has been enormously successful. It was difficult to get people arrested, because international courts have got no police forces and rely on governments to help. I never thought I would see the day when every single one of the people who have been indicted by the Yugoslavia Tribunal would have been in The Hague. Most of the senior people who were put on trial have been convicted.
Q: Why did it take 16 years to arrest Ratko Mladic, the former military leader in Bosnia, for example?
A: The UN troops could have arrested (former Serbian leader Radovan) Karadzic and Mladic in 1996, but there was no political will. They were scared of repercussions. The indictments were too big, resulting in delayed trials. But fair trials can’t be rushed. Besides, (former Serbian President Slobodan) Milosevic’s bad health caused postponements. The Syrian people may hand Assad for trial in the ICC (International Criminal Court), like Milosevic was.
Q: The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in 2009. Why hasn’t he been arrested?
A: As long as Bashir is running the government he is not going to be arrested. But there are very few countries he can visit in the world, and I can’t think of a worse position for a head of state to be in.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
