Posted on 03/11/2002 1:17:41 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
''People will understand that we are serious about going after government corruption,'' he added. ``There is a very selfish reason for this: We end up paying for the bill when these people steal the money, because we have to provide aid, or accept the citizens as refugees or as migrants.''
The Bush administration says it is about to unveil a new weapon to help fight corruption in Latin America: a list of corrupt government officials from the region who will be denied entry visas to the United States.
The anti-corruption drive is being led by Otto J. Reich, the Bush appointee who will be sworn in Monday as the State Department's top official in charge of Latin American affairs, and has already been set in motion. U.S. embassies across the region are being asked to come up with lists of candidates to be denied visas to enter U.S. territory.
I got a small preview of the plan in a telephone interview with Reich last week, in which he mentioned the fight against corruption -- alongside efforts to prop up weakened democracies -- as one of his top priorities in his new job. Reich brought up the corruption issue as he was talking about Argentina's financial collapse.
''What happened in Argentina is the result of two things: One, they didn't really implement the proper economic policy. Two, to the extent that they did, they were undermined by enormous economic mismanagement and corruption,'' he said.
So what are you going to do to prevent these things from happening in the future? I asked.
''The State Department, following the instructions of the president, is undertaking a campaign to identify clearly documentable cases of corruption or money laundering in high places,'' Reich said.
``We are going to revoke visas of people who we have evidence of being involved in corruption or money laundering, just as we deny entry to war criminals or narcotics traffickers.''
How many people are we talking about?
''The sky is the limit . . . We have more than one (already identified), and we are working on several more,'' he said. ``I am asking every U.S. embassy to look for examples . . . We don't want these people to live or visit the United States or to buy a condominium in Miami Beach.
''People will understand that we are serious about going after government corruption,'' he added. ``There is a very selfish reason for this: We end up paying for the bill when these people steal the money, because we have to provide aid, or accept the citizens as refugees or as migrants.''
NICARAGUAN KEPT OUT
The Bush administration's anti-corruption drive began without much fanfare Jan. 25, when Byron Jerez, the close financial aide of former Nicaraguan President Arnoldo Alemán, was turned back at the Managua airport as he was about to board a Miami-bound flight, U.S. officials say.
Press reports have linked Jerez to various corruption scandals, but he has never been charged in connection with them.
Is Bush's anti-corruption drive a good idea? I think so, although to be more effective it should also address the U.S. private sector complicity in many of Latin America's corruption cases. In every corruption case, there is a hand that gives, and a hand that receives. The Bush administration may be only focusing on the first part of the equation.
The government should also take steps to enforce U.S. laws that prohibit American companies from paying bribes and or accepting bank deposits from dubious individuals. The U.S. record on this is pretty murky.
Consider: U.S. banks that accepted more than $130 million in deposits from Raúl Salinas de Gortari, the brother of former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, never asked him to thoroughly account for the source of his money, as U.S. regulations require, a U.S. Senate investigation found. Mexican investigators believe the money came directly from the presidential palace.
PERUVIAN CASE
A similar thing happened in recent months with some $260 million in deposits from former Peruvian intelligence chief Vladimiro Montesinos. Several U.S. and European banks took the money happily, despite U.S. laws prohibiting them from accepting corrupt money.
And many U.S. corporations, such as IBM, have been cited in Latin American court cases as having allegedly paid huge bribes in exchange for government contracts. U.S. anti-corruption laws prohibit U.S. firms from paying bribes, but the rules are often not enforced, critics say.
Shouldn't the United States do more to enforce U.S. anti-corruption? I asked Reich. ''We are enforcing our laws, and we are going to enforce them much more,'' he answered.
Let's hope so. Revoking U.S. visas of corrupt Latin American officials is a welcome move. But, unless Washington does something about corrupt executives of U.S. firms handing out bribes or receiving dirty deposits, it will be seen abroad as an example of U.S. hypocrisy.
I welcome this news. This should keep out most or all of the Panamanian legislatures, many judges, the president, and all her crooked cabinet. The last paragraph holds a lot of truth: But, unless Washington does something about corrupt executives of U.S. firms handing out bribes or receiving dirty deposits, it will be seen abroad as an example of U.S. hypocrisy.
Taking away a person’s U.S. visa is, believe it or not, great punishment. One month after Bush became president, the last ex president of Panama had his U.S. visa lifted for trafficking in illegal immigrants to the U.S. He claims he did nothing wrong (HA! They never do). His legal representative, by the way, is shyster Greg Craig’s law firm in Washington D.C. The ex admits this has caused him GREAT PERSONAL EMBARRASSMENT because not everybody is granted a visa. This, therefore, puts him in the “not everybody” class. I still laugh every time I think about this.
Thank you for the post.
It's also good to hear that the US plans to be stricter on the matter of US companies that "go native" by giving out bribes for contracts. Being really firm on this matter is like refusing to negotiate for hostages: it's going to be difficult, and there may be losses, but ultimately it will result in the end of the practice. US companies that give bribes, often in the form of mysterious transfers to "corporations" hastily constituted on some tiny island, and most often to the heads of the LatAm corporations with whom they wish to do business (sometimes to regulatory authorities, as well), are simply keeping the practice alive and even upping the ante. (An inflationary spiral in the buying of Latin American corporate and government officers?)
I think our failure to use immigration and banking laws to try to put the brakes on corruption in Latin America is something that has significantly undercut our efforts there.
Yes, we need to use the laws on the books and not continue grinding out more and more.
Let's try seeing how those laws work and send the legislators packing for a big part of the year.
Bump! This is making Sen. Christopher Dodd very angry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.