30 May 2001
Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=01052902.clt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

US Department of State
International Information Programs

Washington File

29 May 2001

U.S. Ambassador on Corruption Within Security Forces

 (Jackovich speaks at Global Forum in The Hague)(2285)

 The U.S. ambassador to a center for security research in Europe says
 that only by working together can countries attempt to fight

 Victor Jackovich, ambassador to the George C. Marshall European Center
 for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, said that
 rapid electronic money transfer makes containing corruption in any one
 place more difficult than ever.

 He made his comments May 29 to a workshop in The Hague at the Second
 Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity.

 He said democratization has too often been accompanied by corruption
 while improved communication technology has made corruption easier to

 Jackovich emphasized the danger of corruption of law enforcement
 agencies, military forces and intelligence agencies -- the very people
 who are supposed to be fighting corruption.

 The ambassador said national governments must strengthen their
 oversight of national security, military and law enforcement agencies
 by passing appropriate laws and implementing them.

 Developing countries should adopt transparent government regulation,
 create a public work force based on merit and require accountability
 of public officials and institutions, Jackovich said.

 Yet success requires both strong national government oversight and
 international cooperation, he said.

 "Cross-border mechanisms are most successful when domestic
 institutions are strong, democratic and fully developed," Jackovich
 said. "One dimension of this issue cannot be deployed successfully
 without the other."

 Following is the text of Jackovich's remarks as prepared for delivery:

 (begin text) 

 Remarks by Ambassador Victor Jackovich
 Associate Director
 George. C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany


 Global Forum on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity
 Ministry of Justice
 Hague, Netherlands
 May 29, 2001


 Thank you.

 It is an honor to help represent the United States government and, ore
 specifically the George C. Marshall European Center for Security
 Studies, a joint American and German institution, at this Global Forum
 on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity. I would like, first
 of all, to express my gratitude to the Ministry of Justice of the
 Netherlands and the organizers of the forum for extending an
 invitation to me to participate.

 Among other things, I would like to share with you some of the
 highlights and results developed at a conference held just one week
 ago at the Marshall Center's headquarters in Garmisch, Germany. That
 conference dealt with the problem of corruption in national security
 services, including law enforcement agencies, customs, border police
 and armed forces. The Marshall Center conference was sponsored by the
 U.S. and German governments, whose specialists also participated, and
 it was attended by high-ranking representatives of some 30 other
 governments, mostly from Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and
 Southeast Europe.

 The fact that the Marshall Center was the venue for this event
 demonstrated the importance my government gives to this issue. The
 recognition is universal that crime and corruption are major
 destabilizing elements not only in newly emerging democracies, but in
 older states as well. The all-pervasive nature of this threat has
 spawned renewed interest in identifying ways to combat it. This was
 the driving force behind our conference a few weeks ago in Garmisch.

 The Threat of Corruption to Transition Societies

 The United States and other Western governments and societies have not
 necessarily been more adept or more intelligent in developing or
 deploying tools necessary for combating organized crime and
 corruption. But, we have been perhaps more successful, if only because
 -- unlike states in transition -- we are not facing the challenges of
 reform simultaneously with the problems of organization crime and

 But, having identified corruption and crime as major threats to
 stability and security, we recognize that they are, therefore, a
 threat to our own welfare. For this reason, assemblies such as this
 Forum, that bring together specialists from a variety of countries and
 professions, can make a valuable contribution to the battle against
 these threats.

 Today, criminality and corruption are truly transnational phenomena.
 Some organized crime networks are so large and powerful that they have
 the capacity to hold an entire small state hostage, to infiltrate
 government agencies and to merge illegitimate activities into
 legitimate enterprise. Law enforcement agencies -- and even military
 forces and intelligence services -- can be corrupted, their "trade
 craft" borrowed and their members co-opted.

 An even more insidious dimension of the problem, however, is the
 corrosive effect on society at large. There is the danger that the
 population of a newly emerging state could begin to perceive
 criminality and corruption as ineluctable elements in the process of
 transition. There are probably only two directions from such a point
 once it is reached: acceptance of criminality and corruption as
 permanent elements in society, or rejection of the entire transition
 process and of democratization.

 Neither path is positive.

 Results of Marshall Center Conference

 From May 14 through 18, together with the U.S. government's Federal
 Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the German government's
 "Bundeskriminalamt" (BKA), the Marshall Center in Garmisch, Germany
 co-sponsored a Euro-Atlantic conference entitled "Corruption within
 Security Forces: A Threat to National Security." This conference
 looked for ways in which organized crime and corruption are already
 being confronted by various states, but in addition explored some new
 methods. And, as I noted previously, the entire focus was on
 corruption in the armed forces and related services, such as
 intelligence, police and customs.

 Approximately 120 high-ranking government officials from some 25
 states in the Euro-Atlantic community participated in the conference,
 together with specialists, academic figures, journalists, NGO
 representatives and others. A significant number of members of
 national parliaments also attended and were particularly vocal about
 the need to pass new legislation, and the need to ensure expeditious
 implementation of laws where they are already on the books. Attendees
 included: the Chairman of the Kyrgyz Parliamentary Commission on
 Corruption; the Lithuanian Minister of Interior; the Albanian Minister
 of Public Order; the head of the district court in the capital of
 Bulgaria; the Chairman of the Russian Parliament's Subcommittee on
 Transnational Crime, the Chairman of the Romanian Parliament's
 Committee on Economic Affairs; the Vice President of European
 Parliament and the Deputy Director of the Council of Europe's
 anti-corruption initiative called "GRECO." As I mentioned earlier,
 several prominent American and German law enforcement representatives
 also participated.

 One of the most fascinating aspects of this conference in Garmisch,
 Germany was to observe the cohesion between military and non-military
 specialists, including policy-makers, when it came to the subject of
 corruption. What emerged was a clear consensus that corruption is
 basically the same in all contexts, and that government officials of
 various agencies must work together in order for the battle against
 criminality and corruption to be successful.

 Beyond this, during the full week of discussions and workshops, the
 participants recognized four basic conclusions:

 -- First, fundamental changes in Eastern Europe over the past decade
 have resulted in tremendous forward progress on democratization,
 engagement of citizenry in the political process and development of
 market economies. But, these changes have also been accompanied by
 massive social, political and economic disruption, creating an
 environment conducive to corruption and organized crime.

 -- Second, "globalization" -- loosely defined as the age of more rapid
 communication, easier international travel and more technological
 innovation -- has given the purveyors of crime and corruption some
 potent tools. For this reason, corruption and criminality can permeate
 an entire state apparatus and present formidable cross-border threats.

 -- Third, the problems of crime and corruption are all the more acute
 when they directly involve the armed forces, law enforcement agencies,
 border police and customs. This is not only because these are
 important pillars of the state. It is also because these are the very
 institutions that are charged with the task of safeguarding the
 security of everyone else in the state.

 -- Fourth, and finally, strong international cooperation is essential
 if organized crime and corruption are to be successfully countered.
 This is why regional initiatives are so valuable in the shorter term.
 And, this is why assemblies such as this current Global Forum can make
 enormous contributions.

 But, the participants at the Marshall Center conference not only
 surveyed the problems and their origins. They also actively exchanged
 ideas on what measures could be taken in the future-- by individual
 states and by regional associations -- to improve efforts to combat
 organized crime and corruption.

 In this regard, I identified four major conclusions:

 -- First, government oversight, especially by national parliaments,
 over national security, military and law enforcement agencies must be
 strengthened. Equally important, controls and oversight within
 individual agencies must also be improved.

 -- Second, and connected with the first point, a legislative
 frame-work must be activated. This means adopting new laws where none
 now exist, and implementing laws where they do already exist.

 -- Third, there is a crucial need for the highest levels of political
 leadership to provide genuine support for their country's battle
 against corruption. This includes ensuring implementation of existing
 laws, exercising real oversight and clearly demonstrating an
 intolerance for corruption.

 -- And fourth, and finally, a culture of rejection of criminality and
 corruption must be developed, in place of any tendency to continue a
 culture of acceptance.

 By the way, the vast majority of participants at this conference came
 from states in transition. Perhaps not surprisingly then, one of the
 points they continually made was that the U.S. and West European
 states need to make more efforts to reduce the "demand" side, which
 could in turn reduce the prosperity for corruption on the "supply"

 In brief, those are the highlights of trends identified and solutions
 explored at the Marshall Center conference on corruption in security
 forces, held just a few weeks ago in Garmisch, Germany. This event was
 one in a series of conferences and seminars we intend to continue on
 this subject.

 The Way Forward

 It is clear that a successful battle can be waged against corruption
 and organized crime, or that we can at least reduce the deleterious
 impact crime and corruption have on our societies, on our states and
 on security and stability. But, it is equally clear that this must be
 done in ways that integrate many players in a society; that encourage
 active involvement of a strong civil society and media; and, that
 engage popular opinion from the bottom up, as well as political will
 of leadership from the top down.

 In order for reform strategies to succeed, they must combine the
 efforts of fighting corruption within national political and economic
 borders with the efforts of fighting corruption on an international
 scale. In other words, cross-border mechanisms are most successful
 when domestic institutions are strong, democratic and fully developed.
 One dimension of this issue cannot be deployed successfully without
 the other.

 Some key measures that emerge as critical to the process are the

 Strengthening government oversight. Whether through Parliaments of
 through other official bodies, strong government oversight over
 national security forces -- including customs, military and
 intelligence services -- can be a major factor in fighting corruption.
 This is why the United States and many others in the international
 community put such emphasis on rendering assistance to the development
 of Parliament committees, staffers and other agencies.

 Harmonizing regulations and transition processes. Newly emerging
 democracies can eliminate significant opportunities for corruption and
 crime by harmonizing their laws, regulations and practices with those
 of the rest of Europe and the international community. Specifically,
 processes such as privatization of denationalization of property, a
 formidable challenge faced by virtually every one of the new states of
 Eastern Europe, can be made more transparent and the results more

 Developing a merit-based public service cadre. In many newly emerging
 democracies, public servants and even those in national security
 forces, are often selected on the basis of loyalty to a particular
 party or politician. This is one reason why elections can be such
 traumatic ordeals in these states. There is a dire and urgent need to
 train and develop a cadre of professionals in government agencies,
 including the security forces, that can provide professionalism and
 expertise on a continuing basis without fear of arbitrary removal of

 Requiring accountability of public officials and institutions. Elected
 officials should be held accountable to the public through
 transparency of their transactions and their acquisition of personal
 wealth. In addition, national institutions -- such as banks, service
 industries and security's forces -- should come under scrutiny; in
 cases of significant transfers of holdings or cash, or in cases of
 significant amounts of procurement of equipment. This presupposes an
 active and objective media, as well as a vibrant and involved network
 of citizens associations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).


 In the end, the stability and security of the most vulnerable of
 states is of vital interest to the stability and security of the
 entire international community. We are only as strong as our weakest
 link. In our modern age of instant transference of funds and rapid
 exchange of information via the Internet, the world's
 inter-connectivity has grown and developed at a pace never before

 Even if we wanted, we could not consign criminality and corruption to
 certain states or societies and give as the excuse that these problems
 are endemic or natural in those parts of the world.

 Under these circumstances, it is clear that we must work together --
 West and East, developed and developing, traditional democracies and
 newly emerging states in transition -- in order to wage the fight
 against corruption, in order to win that battle and in order to secure
 a better life for our children.

 Thank you.

 (end text)

 (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
 Department of State.  Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=01053002.clt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

30 May 2001

USAID Official on Fighting Corruption in Foreign Aid

 (Levine cites need for cooperation, shared responsibility)(2510)

 Preventing foreign aid from abetting corrupt practices in the
 beneficiary country remains a challenge for donor countries, a U.S.
 Agency for International Development (USAID) official says.

 Neil Levine, senior adviser for governance at USAID, said the agency
 has developed a number of ways to prevent fraud and abuse in foreign

 He made his comments May 29 to a workshop at the Second Global Forum
 on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity in The Hague.

 Levine said USAID has begun training staffs in beneficiary countries
 on identifying fraud and enforcing laws against fraud.

 Another challenge is coordinating anti-corruption activities among
 bilateral and multilateral donors, he said.

 Levine suggested that donor institutions working on the same country
 project should form joint assessment teams to analyze the problem in
 order to plan a coordinated response. He said donors should encourage
 anti-corruption conventions among beneficiary countries and monitor
 the performance of such conventions.

 Donors should also provide financial support to non-governmental
 organizations in the beneficiary countries to build their capacity to
 prevent corruption of foreign aid.

 Following are terms and abbreviations used in the text:

 -- USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development
 -- USG: U.S. government
 -- IG: inspector general
 -- OAS: Organization of American States
 -- IDB: Inter-American Development Bank
 -- IMF: International Monetary Fund
 -- NGO: non-governmental organization
 -- CSO: civil society organization
 -- OECD: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
 -- G-5: United States, Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom
 -- TI: Transparency International

 Following is the text of Levine's remarks:

 (begin text) 


 Thanks to Minister Herfkens for the invitation to participate on this
 particular panel and in general, to commend our hosts for this very
 successful conference. From the range of its participation to the
 scope of the topics under discussion, it truly is a Global Forum.

 Most importantly, however, it is not just an international gathering
 of individuals. It is a gathering of the momentum behind the
 international movement to fight corruption.

 The Perspective of a Bilateral Donor

 No nation is immune from the problem of corruption. Scanning the
 headlines of any daily newspaper from any of the countries here in
 attendance, one will find not just one, but several examples of
 betrayals of the public trust in one form or another.

 In giving advice in this area, it's better to offer it as a pragmatist
 rather than a moralist. As a pragmatist, USAID engages in
 anti-corruption as a development issue:

 -- Because the marginal cost of corruption is so much greater in the
 developing world, where resources are scarce to begin with.

 -- As a donor, we are interested in what works programmatically.

 -- We are interested in practical ways to see that donor efforts are
 better coordinated.

 Part of a Broader Relationship: Our assistance takes place in the
 context of a broader political relationship between nations where
 issues that affect that relationship -- like corruption -- can be
 raised directly in the course of our ongoing policy dialog. Some would
 say that bilateral donors are more likely than multilateral
 institutions to push on anti-corruption issues -- that is true,
 although it's not always true.

 Political will: We should be increasingly aware of political will to
 fight corruption, not only in recipient countries, but among the
 donors in each developing country context. Strong donor coordination
 can help overcome a single donor's reticence to engage in a given
 country. Such reticence is only natural given the differences in
 history, governmental structure and internal political dynamics in our
 countries. Donor coordination will allow us to use our differences as
 a source of strength, allowing us to pitch-in for each other.

 Flexibililty/Agility: 1) loan v. grant; 2) variety of partners; 3)
 able to call on other USG agencies (Many of those institutions -- our
 Justice Department, Customs Service, USAID's Office of the Inspector
 General, the Treasury Department and the Office of Government Ethics,
 are part of the Global Forum.)


 -- Keeping Foreign Aid Clean
 -- Donor Coordination
 -- Sustainability

 Challenge Number One is Keeping Foreign Aid Clean

 While this seems an obvious place for donors to begin, it remains a
 challenge for a number of reasons.

 First, our ability to mount and sustain a long-term institutional
 response to corruption depends in large part on our ability to remain
 completely accountable for the assistance we now provide. Support for
 anti-corruption assistance is the single issue that seems to unite
 supporters and critics of foreign assistance in our Congress and in
 our country.

 Second, as long as there is leakage, fraud and waste, we will continue
 to undercut the individuals and the institutions we wish to support.

 Finally, with corruption now a front-burner issue in so many
 countries, we have an opportunity to make long-lasting institutional
 changes that will help change the way we do business. Let me provide
 you with some examples.

 Role of the IG: USAID's Office of the Inspector General (IG) is
 charged by the Congress to perform audits and investigations of U.S.
 government agencies' program and operations, promote agency economy,
 efficiency, and effectiveness, and help prevent fraud and abuse.

 Internal Controls: By law and regulation, the U.S. has established a
 system of control in order to fulfill our responsibilities as careful
 stewards of U.S. taxpayers' money. (As our president likes to say,
 it's not the government's money, it's people's money. When money comes
 from our Congress, we implement programs in trust on behalf of the
 U.S. government and, ultimately, the American people.)

 Supreme Audit Institutions: But accountability for these funds does
 not and should not rest only with donors. In addition to our system of
 internal controls, the Office of Inspector General has undertaken an
 aggressive campaign to identify, support and enhance the capacity of
 Supreme Audit Institutions in the counties where we work. Over time,
 with the necessary training and other support, the audit function once
 performed internally can now be transferred to the host country. The
 Supreme Audit Institution in Tanzania, for example, recently audited
 nearly $9 million in USAID funding. Similar audits are taking place in
 Zambia, Ethiopia, Honduras and El Salvador, just to name a few.

 Prevention/Fraud Awareness: Keeping Foreign Aid Clean does not rest on
 internal controls alone. The most effective, least costly method to
 fight corruption is prevention. Again, USAID's Office of the Inspector
 General has begun training courses in Fraud Awareness, not just for
 USAID staff, but for our implementing partners in country. This
 training includes an in-depth presentation of fraud indicators, and
 introduction of aggressive law enforcement strategies, which enhance
 our ability to deter corrupt acts. When they do occur, we are better
 able to detect, investigate and prosecute cases where warranted. In
 fact, a recent IG investigation has led to the prosecution of several
 multi-national corporations for bid rigging. As a result, these
 companies have been ordered to pay over $100 million in criminal fines
 and civil restitution.

 The second challenge is donor coordination. Again, this is not a news
 flash. But what may be new is the opportunity to develop better
 mechanisms for ensuring that our work is effective, well targeted and
 not duplicative. If there is any good news, it may be that there are
 some examples of donor cooperation that have been successful and merit
 further exploration and use.

 Accountability and Anti-Corruption in the Americas Project (AAA)

 One example of successful donor coordination was the creation of the
 Donor Consultative Group on Accountability and Anti-Corruption in the
 Americas, now knows as the AAA Project. Over the course of 12 years,
 the project moved from eight to nineteen bilateral and multilateral
 institutions including the U.S., Canada, Germany Japan, the Central
 American Bank for Economic Integration, the OAS, the IDB, the IMF,
 World Bank Institution, the UN and others.

 The early years focused on financial management and the donor forum
 helped to devise a division of labor whereby a single donor would take
 the lead in a particular country, coordinate the needs assessment and
 propose ways to institutionalize integrated financial management
 systems in national entities.

 Today, virtually every country in the hemisphere has undertaken
 financial management system reforms using a similar model developed
 under the project. The donor forum continues to meet quarterly to
 share information. Its next challenge is aimed a bringing these
 financial management reforms to the sub-national level, working with

 A state of the art website (www.respondanet.com) makes anti-corruption
 resources widely available. According to a recent ranking done by
 websmost-linked.com, an independent Internet rating service,
 respondanet is in the 8.9 top percentile of the most visited websites

 Coordination with NGOs: The project has expanded to include civil
 society organizations (CSOs) with a sub-project called Anti-corruption
 Without Borders (ACWB). It promotes the use of the Internet as an
 indispensable tool for all CSOs engaged in anti-corruption activities
 in the region. Maintained in both English and Spanish (Anti-Corrupcion
 Sin Fronteras), it allows NGOs an opportunity to share resources,
 information, exchange ideas via list-serves and generally serves to
 link anti-corruption CSOs across the region. Technical assistance in
 website construction and design is also available.

 OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Transition Economies

 Another example in Eastern Europe, USAID is providing initial support
 for the operation of the OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Transition
 Economies. This anti-corruption initiative serves the Baltics, Central
 and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States. It links
 international donors, key government officials, and civil society
 representatives in a forum to exchange information about
 anti-corruption policies and best practices. Building upon existing
 regional initiatives, the Network co-ordinates efforts, shares
 information, and promotes international instruments and best practices
 as benchmarks.

 Best Practices

 Field-Based Coordination with Parallel Mechanisms at the Capital
 Level: As a highly decentralized, field based organization operating
 in over 80 missions around the world, USAID tends to believe that the
 best donor coordination occurs first at the field level. Because not
 all bilateral and multilateral donors have a technical field presence,
 we have found that field level efforts are even more effective if
 there exists a parallel donor coordination mechanisms at the level of
 the capitals. Experience with Consultative Groups and other mechanisms
 such as those undertaken by the bilateral donors and the IDB following
 Hurricane Mitch represented an advance in this type of parallel donor

 Lessons form Hurricane Mitch

 -- Broad Donor Consensus on Objectives of Reconstruction: embodied in
 the Stockholm Declaration -- committed a reconstruction based on
 transparency and good governance and coordination of donor efforts.

 -- Field-based Coordination -- led by G-5 and broadened to all
 interest donors. Allowed donors to coordinate efforts, speak with one
 voice on policy maters and to avoid duplication at the programmatic

 -- Parallel Mechanisms at the Capital Level -- Rotating chairmanship
 among the G-5 took place at the field level and the capital level.
 This ensured a continuity and coherence of policy -- in the field and
 in the capitals and most importantly at the Consultative Group

 Three Concrete Suggestions: In the area of anti-corruption, we have
 two suggestions that we believe will assist in the effort to improve
 donor coordination. The first is the use of joint assessment teams --
 meaning multi-donor technical representatives -- sent to analyze a
 given country so that we can begin with a common reference point as to
 the nature of the problem and begin to plan a coordinated response. To
 that suggestion, we would add the suggestion of cross training --
 meaning providing opportunities to our technical officers to
 participate in each other's respective training programs. Each
 December, USAID brings in over 100 of its field based democracy
 officers for training. We would like to open spaces for interest donor
 representatives to participate and share their experiences in the
 training mode. We have also developed a distance-learning module,
 available on CE, which we would like to share with those interested
 for comment and critique.

 Third, we believe a new area for donor coordination has emerged with
 the development of regional anti-corruption conventions and
 agreements. These agreements give us an agreed upon set of goals. Now
 begins the hard work of bring institutions into compliance, as well as
 establishing effective peer- and civil society monitoring mechanisms.
 As donors, we need to be active, not only in our support for the
 passage of conventions, but especially for the monitoring work and
 institutional development that must follow. The clear terms of these
 agreements make this an area where we can more easily work together.

 The third challenge is sustainability of anti-corruption efforts. With
 the launch of various anti-corruption initiatives over the last
 several years, we are now running into the challenge of making these
 donor-supported efforts sustainable over the medium and long-term.
 Again, some good examples exist.

 USAID's work with Supreme Audit Institutions is aimed at raising the
 institutional capacity of these entities to continue to do their jobs
 on a sustainable basis.

 In the non-governmental sector, I know that this is a prime concern of
 Transparency International, an organization we are proud to have
 supported, almost from the beginning. In order to maintain the
 independence necessary to be an impartial advocate for anti-corruption
 reforms around the world, TI, and other similar organizations, should
 ideally be freed from year-to-year reliance on donors. To this end
 USAID will work with TI and with other donors on a long-term
 sustainability strategy.

 More generally, the lesson for donors, we believe, is not to
 underestimate the degree of capacity building that will be needed, in
 addition to technical assistance and financial support -- and the
 duration of that need -- in order to create sustainable institutions.
 Concretely, it should be a requirement of donor engagement in the
 anti-corruption area that beyond the cost of the programs we want to
 support, that we accept responsibility for the institutional
 development costs for NGOs. All of us need to provide organizational
 development, capacity development, and financial management
 assistance. We all need to be aware of the temptation to be a
 "free-rider" in the donor community -- yet if all of us provide only
 the "program costs" how will local organization acquire the
 organizational capacity to carry-out programs and develop the
 sustainability needed for long term anti-corruption programs that
 extend beyond our development projects.

 We have found that there are no "one-shot deals" when it comes to
 funding effective anti-corruption initiatives. As we bring discussion
 of this once taboo subject out into the open, we need to find ways to
 support efforts that go beyond raising awareness. Ultimately, we must
 help countries change the incentives that lead to corruption -- by
 driving home the costs of corruption on development; by reducing the
 opportunities for the exercise of unlimited discretion and by
 penalizing bad behavior when it occurs.

 Donor Endurance over Donor Fatigue: These are long-term challenges
 that are first and foremost to be faced by the countries themselves.
 In anti-corruption, our slogan should be donor endurance rather than
 donor fatigue.

 (end text)

 (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
 Department of State.  Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)