Vienna, 21 January 2002

On assuming the responsibility conferred upon me as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for the Negotiation of a Convention against Corruption, I would like to express not only my gratitude for the exalted function with which I have been vested but also my determination to act with total impartiality, in partnership with the bureau which represents all the regions, with the aim of building a consensus. The draft prepared in Buenos Aires last November provides a good point of departure for furthering a serious negotiation.

The task ahead is not, I believe, to simply add one more text to the existing ones, this time with a broader geographical scope. The effort required of us is greater than that. It is to set ourselves a higher goal, to throw the doors wide open to a global and continuing struggle. In a kind of collective catharsis, we need to rally together in bringing about a profound change in behaviour. Our task is to secure a common commitment, one that reaches beyond our natural differences and the diversity of our situations, one that might well call for internal adjustments in some cases, for a strengthening of controls, a reform of practices, more effective and more extensive international cooperation among government institutions and private agencies alike.

For many years now we have not lacked standards and, except perhaps in certain specific countries, there have even been institutions in place. But it would be wrong to conceal the clear evidence that, to a greater or lesser extent, there is a sense that what we know by the generic name of corruption is gaining ground; it is even encroaching on the agencies and institutions designed to contain it, such as parliamentary assemblies, the judiciary and even regulatory bodies.

Lord Acton's oft-quoted aphorism, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", is a truth historically proven. Open systems, the practice of liberties, respect for institutional limits and genuine democratic procedures undoubtedly constitute an advance towards countering corruption, but can one be blind to the threat of corruption in powers that are not absolute, in States firmly founded on the rule of law or in flourishing societies? 

It is precisely this insidious, mobile aspect of corruption that makes it a challenge for us all. And it is this aspect that makes it absolutely essential to formulate a response to which we are committed. We have to fight it in its historical context. The list of legal instruments, regional or partial, on corruption is impressive. And there would be no justification at this point for bringing down the minimum standards already adopted, not even for the sake of achieving their supposed universalization or increasing the chances of their being ratified. 

The fragility of Law unaccompanied by Will is wont to create vast distances which tend to make sceptics of citizens the world over. 

It is necessary to recognize differences, to examine specific conditions, to respect cultural legacies, but with the aim of arriving at common denominators for improving the situation. We have to affirm certain ethical principles, a scale of values that forms a common bedrock underlying different cultural currents. These enrich what can be seen as common civilization, a common identity that we find through action undertaken together. 

We need a culture of transparency and integrity, the pure air of vigilance against the opaque and clandestine world that feeds corruption. Setting aside legitimate argument over its ideological import and practical implications, globalisation is a fact of life deriving from formidable technical and scientific developments which have a tangible daily reality. 

The inter-relationship, perhaps even confusion at times, between what have been regarded as the public and the private spheres appears to be one of the defining features of our time. Transnationalization is a growing trend that goes beyond a few instances of voluntarism, and corruption is part of that trend.

 There is no denying the reality of this growing inter-relationship between the public and the private and no denying the fact that the two spheres feed each other. 

This transnationalization calls in turn for a sharing of responsibilities. Back in the seventeenth century, the poet and nun Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, referring to different types of situation but nevertheless of relevance to corruption, asked the following: 

 An additional effort will be required of the international organizations, both those deriving from San Francisco (the United Nations) and the Bretton Woods organizations (the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and WTO), and also of regional systems and the new integration arrangements, of the public sector and private enterprise, of the churches and the media, of civil society and political parties. The financial and banking institutions and multinational corporations will also be called upon to step up their efforts to combat corruption, prevent it and overthrow it as a global phenomenon.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, got it absolutely right when he stated on the 14th of this month, in his address to the Preparatory Committee for the International Conference on Financing for Development, that for the Monterrey Conference to be a success:

 "First, it must strengthen and sharpen the consensus that now exists on the policies, mechanisms and institutional frameworks which are required, within the developing countries, to mobilize domestic resources, as well as to attract and benefit from international private capital flows -and particularly from foreign direct investment. Agreement to conclude a comprehensive international convention against corruption -providing, for example, for the repatriation of illegally transferred funds- would also be a major step forward."

This strengthens our resolve in tackling the different types of corruption that exist in all societies. What we see appearing now are anti-models of corrupt conduct which are taken on formidable challenges. These strike not only at moral standards but also at the very governability of a country, producing destabilization effects that are quantifiable in terms of GDP and undem1ine the best models and paradigms.

Although no country, developed or developing, is immune to its effects, ways of dealing with it can be discerned. The important thing is to take action. To refuse to simply accept that corruption is a kind of dreadful, inevitable sentence to which our peoples are condemned. A sentence that is particularly perverse and wicked for the most vulnerable in each nation and each geopolitical context. It matters not how far advanced the problem is. It hurts us all, and it is up to each of us to respond to this multifaceted and implacable challenge by taking an approach that is at once consensual, idealistic and pragmatic, and without hoping for miracle formulas or instant solutions.

What lies ahead is a process, a process that is historical, social, economic and cultural, and, in full knowledge of our limitations, it is a worthwhile enterprise to dedicate ourselves to discharging what is a civic duty on a global scale.