The Foreign Service Journal, May 2008

were on the tongues of a highly informed and sophisticated public that waited for the other shoe to drop. Embarking on a cogent and consis- tent strategy, Amb. Marquardt met regularly with high-ranking local offi- cials behind closed doors, offering an open hand of cooperation in a cam- paign against corruption to the coun- try’s officials. At the same time, one “Most Corrupt Official” was working to derail, for personal gain, a $100 million airline deal that promised enormous mutual benefit for both the U.S. and the host country. But when the MCO sought a visa, the embassy gave him a tip-off to withdraw his appli- cation instead of invoking Proclamation 7750 to deny it — apparently on instructions from Washington. In the official silence that ensued, unfounded rumors began percolating that the ambassador had been on the take or was successfully threatened to halt an effective anti- corruption campaign. In the end, the airline deal fell through. Now, however, more than two years later, the MCO in question — and another — have been removed from their government positions, and appear to have been arrested, on March 29, for embezzlement. A symbolic number of other crooked ministers have also been dis- missed, though none of the important ones has yet been prosecuted. Amb. Marquardt deserves ample credit for managing the quiet process that led to these arrests. Still, questions remain: Will the arrests lead to real convictions, and resti- tution of stolen public funds? Were they staged to placate Western embassies, with a wink to the accused? Can the public trust be regained after years of disappointment and dashed hopes? In February of this year, rage boiled over and cities burned; 100 people were killed and 1,500 arrested, many of them arbitrarily. Might the process have been accelerated to spare the violence? A New Weapon The Cameroon experience shows that a U.S. effort to work with host governments to challenge corruption can strike a responsive chord in Third World countries when carried out with persistence. It also suggests that even more aggressive action on the issue could be successful and beneficial. Proclamation 7750 is a potentially powerful tool in the hands of American officials for this purpose. As published in the Federal Register on Jan. 14, 2004, the order bars entry to the U.S. not only to corrupt public and former public officials whose behavior “has serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States,” but also to their families. It specifically bars entry in instances where individuals’ actions result in “serious adverse effects on … the stability of democratic institu- tions and nations.” Under the measure, now part of Section 212(f) of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, a visa should be denied to individuals in the following categories: “(a) Public officials or former public officials whose solicitation or acceptance of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of their public functions has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States. “(b) Persons whose provision of or offer to provide any article of monetary value or other benefit to any public official in exchange for any act or mission in the perfor- mance of such official’s public functions has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States. “(c) Public officials or former public officials whose misappropriation of public funds or interference with the judicial, electoral, or other public processes has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States. “(d) The spouses, children, and dependent household members of persons described in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above, who are beneficiaries of any articles of monetary value or other benefits obtained by such persons.” In an explanatory cable sent by the Department of State to all diplomatic missions on March 1, 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell noted that “the threshold for ineligibility under the proclamation is quite high.” Required is “evidence indicating whether the person has engaged in or benefited from public corruption.” Further, the “serious adverse effects” of the corruption on the “international economic activity of U.S. businesses, U.S. foreign assistance goals, the security of the United States against transnational crime and terrorism, or the stability of F O C U S 46 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A Y 2 0 0 8 Proclamation 7750 put a significant new tool into the hands of American officials.