BY
With the cleaners still clearing up after the YES
Conference in Kyiv, and the Davos Conference in Kyiv on-going, a reader may be
forgiven for missing the fact that Denmark has been appointed “point man” for
the EU with regard to implementing a 3 year anti-corruption programme
worth €16 million.
The Danish Foreign
Minister Kristian Jensen, and the Danish Ambassador to Ukraine will have a
difficult task when it comes to achieving any benchmarks (whatever the
benchmarks are) relating to this programme and accounting for any successes or
failures.
Indeed the Danish FM is on record sharing a very dim view regarding the retarded
attempts by the Ukrainian political class to neuter the legislation it passed
regarding e-declarations – “We fully share the view of the
anti-corruption committee – there should be no changes made to the law.
Commissioner
Hahn and I raised that in our meetings with Prime Minister Volodomyr Groisman.
Delays have already left a bad impression. No-one should forget that the
EU is watching carefully as the final decisions are taken on visa liberalisation.”
Anti-corruption
activists however, perhaps naturally, expect more than robust rhetoric and
diplomatic pressure and are advocating joint prosecutor teams for joint
jurisdiction cases.
It has to be said that
in the diplomatic and political circles there is indeed discussion over some
European judges taking a role in any specialised anti-corruption court if and
when one appears in Ukraine. Quite how that will sit within existing
Ukrainian legislation is unclear, or indeed how it would sit constitutionally
too.
There are also issues
over joint jurisdiction, what it actually means, and how it would fit within
any Ukrainian legislation and/or the Constitution. Lest it be forgotten
the ratification of the Rome Statute – an instrument relating to the ICC – was
long delayed (and was this year postponed for 3 years when it should therefore enter into effect in
accordance with Ukraine’s EU Association Agreement obligations after
Constitution changes).
It should be noted that
the ICC jurisdiction is complimentary to national courts – and even that
complimentary status was a constitution hurdle – yet there are far less
political (and perhaps socially) prickly issues than that of joint jurisdiction
that is concurrent . An issue perhaps irritated further by whether a
State adopts a monoist or dualist approach to regional or international law.
None of that should
prevent prosecutors and investigators working together of course, the issue
will be at which court due process occurs and arguments over where any criminal
act was actually committed. Neither do such jurisdictional issues prevent
any EU nation from enforcing its own laws (which they all seem to do with the
Ukrainian elite far, far more often than not) regardless of Ukraine
failing to enforce its own .
Whatever the case and
the issues of joint jurisdiction, or indeed any agreed (or not) definition of
corruption aside, as EU “point man” Denmark will be implementing a pilot
anti-corruption programme in 2 regions of Ukraine – it is to be hoped that some
irreversible headway is made.
Perhaps nailing and
jailing the regional elites will be far more efficient than the attempts to do
the same with the national elites which clearly remains a major problem.
“Family Yanukovych” may not longer be on a corruption, coercive,
corporate raiding blitzkrieg, carpet bombing and plundering the nation of any
State and/or private asset that took their eye, but a slightly more subtle
“sniper-fire” of more targeted plundering and raiding still actively continues.
Only today was the blog
approached asking if there were any names of European public figures it was in
contact with that could sit as executive or non-executive directors on
corporate boards where their presence may then keep “Mr Kononenko and Co”
(their phrase) from acquiring them against their will (now or in the future).
So, for the likes of Carl Bild, Lady Ashton, Stefan
Fule, John Herbst et al., there is still a job they can do for Ukraine by
actively assisting in the fight against corruption/coercive corporate raiding.
There are Ukrainian
firms that would appreciate such personalities accepting positions on their
boards for no other reason than in the hope that such public profiles can be
sufficient to dissuade the current wolves. Executive and non-executive
roles are waiting for such specific personal qualities only such a cadre can
offer.
There is clearly a demand and there is a very practical role that
can be played which will not interfere with the richly deserved lecture
circuit/punditry/think-tank leadership/consultancies and the rewards they give.
It is not the “offensive” (ability to open doors, insightful comment,
strategic awareness etc) perceptions that come with such names, but the
“defensive/preventative” capabilities that come with them name that are sought.
It is of course a
stopgap solution being sought by some in Ukraine to the continuing failure of
the current elite to get a firm grasp on the rule of law. Hopefully The
Kingdom of Denmark will implement a trail-blazing anti-corruption programme
that is spectacularly successful and swiftly repeated throughout all regions,
but as innumerable European diplomats and bureaucrats have said ad infinitum, when it comes to removing corrupt leaders in
Ukraine, then “Ukraine has to own the process” (read “do it”). As
that is not going to happen at the very top, in the meantime a few emails to a
few “European public figures” have to be written.
No comments:
Post a Comment