Perez Molina downfall another notch in CICIG's belt
Nina Lakhani argues that Guatemalan president's downfall marks success for corruption investigators. I would argue, as I think many others would, that CICIG had already succeeded prior to the arrests of Roxana Baldetti and Otto Perez Molina. Nina summarizes several of the individual successes in the article and I make a cameo at the end.
People in El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico are asking whether a CICIG model would work for them. I would say yes to El Salvador and Honduras. They are rather small geographically and their combined population is less than that of Guatemala. Honduran citizens have mobilized in the streets asking for a similar commission as well giving any institution that is established greater potential credibility from the start. Something that Guatemala did not have. El Salvador probably still has stronger institutions than did Guatemala when CICIG first arrived. Mexico is a different beast with a population and geographic expanse that dwarf its southern neighbors.
The US Congress has already set aside some financial support for a commission in Honduras should that country ask for one. In these cases, I don't imagine that a few million dollars is going to be the hold up. They might have a more difficult time hiring staff that can hit the ground running which is probably not insurmountable but a bigger challenge than money. What I don't have an answer to is whether CICIG would have been as successful as it has been these last two years had it not lucked out with commissioner Ivan Velasquez Gómez. Was he necessary to what happened the last six months?
I'd also like to see an analysis on the positives / negatives of adopting a regional model. There were several photos on Twitter last night of Manuel Baldizon flying in his helicopter to a meeting in San Salvador. There's a lot of trade between the two countries and we have come across several stories of drugs being transported from El Salvador to Guatemala, which erroneously led to a few congressmen's murders a few years ago. Salvadoran businessmen allegedly prefer to invest in Nicaragua not just because of security concerns but because of the lack of transparency in the country.
You get a commission! You get a commission!
Critics argue CICIG was meant to be a short-term measure in order to build local capacity and independent judicial institutions. Eight years after it was established, most high-profile investigations still depend on CICIG, and serious problems persist at the highest level of the judiciary. The original judge in the customs case was removed amid allegations of bribery.
'Our Central American spring': protesters demand an end to decades of corruption
But activists across Central America have been buoyed by CICIG’s successes, and are now calling for similar initiatives to help tackle the appalling levels of corruption, crime and impunity afflicting El Salvador and Honduras.
CICIG, which costs $12-$15m a year and has 150 staff from 20 countries, is excellent value for money, according to Mike Allison, associate professor of political sciences at Scranton University and author of the Central American Politics Blog.
“I have confidence that the US and international community would provide the resources Honduras and El Salvador would need to establish similar commissions. If Guatemala can recoup some or all of the money stolen in the customs scandal and prevent its reoccurrence, it will have paid for several years of CICIG in a single investigation.”I still honestly don't get the argument that CICIG costs too much. Nina found the costs to run CICIG. But, seriously, who thinks that $12-$15 million is a lot of money? It's actually a steal.
People in El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico are asking whether a CICIG model would work for them. I would say yes to El Salvador and Honduras. They are rather small geographically and their combined population is less than that of Guatemala. Honduran citizens have mobilized in the streets asking for a similar commission as well giving any institution that is established greater potential credibility from the start. Something that Guatemala did not have. El Salvador probably still has stronger institutions than did Guatemala when CICIG first arrived. Mexico is a different beast with a population and geographic expanse that dwarf its southern neighbors.
The US Congress has already set aside some financial support for a commission in Honduras should that country ask for one. In these cases, I don't imagine that a few million dollars is going to be the hold up. They might have a more difficult time hiring staff that can hit the ground running which is probably not insurmountable but a bigger challenge than money. What I don't have an answer to is whether CICIG would have been as successful as it has been these last two years had it not lucked out with commissioner Ivan Velasquez Gómez. Was he necessary to what happened the last six months?
I'd also like to see an analysis on the positives / negatives of adopting a regional model. There were several photos on Twitter last night of Manuel Baldizon flying in his helicopter to a meeting in San Salvador. There's a lot of trade between the two countries and we have come across several stories of drugs being transported from El Salvador to Guatemala, which erroneously led to a few congressmen's murders a few years ago. Salvadoran businessmen allegedly prefer to invest in Nicaragua not just because of security concerns but because of the lack of transparency in the country.
You get a commission! You get a commission!
Post a Comment