Tuesday, 10 November 2009

NO CORRUPTION: UN Convention Against Corruption


Corruption is evil in more ways than one.  It diverts money away from the well-being of individuals, societies, nations.  It interferes with good and sound trading relationships.  It also corrupts the hearts and spirits of individuals and nations driving out compassion, fellow feeling, and worthy ambition.  The United Nations is trying to do something about it. Transparency International is the non-government organisation which acts as a watchdog.

Australia long thought it was one of the good guys with only minimal, if any, corruption.  We know differently now - and have found that it reaches into even the most central of national institutions.  Corruption and the mentality that encourages is alive and well and living in Australia - and in high places.

From Greg Neumann of Transparency International:

The coming week will be fundamental for the fight against corruption around the world.

141 governments, party to the United Nations Convention against Corruption — the only global initiative to tackle corruption — are invited to Doha, Qatar. The core agenda item at the meeting is the adoption of a monitoring mechanism that will be used to verify whether governments’ actions match their commitments. A commitment they gave to their citizens by ratifying the convention.

To be effective, any review must be public and transparent, as well as inclusive of civil society and other parties.  That is why civil society is in Doha to monitor the negotiations and raise pressure for an effective, transparent and inclusive review mechanism.

Stay up-to-date on next week's negotiations through
Get the background on the web pages of a civil society coalition monitoring the implementation of the UNCAC at: http://www.uncaccoalition.org/.

Keep in touch.
Best wishes from Doha,

Georg

All the best from The Network, Georg.

MissEagle
racism-free
Photobucket

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.

Total Pageviews