Remarks of Deputy Administrator Babbitt, July 15, 1998

This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.

Remarks of USAID Deputy Administrator Harriet Babbitt to the American Bar Association's Central and East European Law Initiative Executive Board/Liaison Meeting
July 15, 1998
Bucharest, Romania
Thank you, Tom. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to join all of you today here in Bucharest. Few of us who were trained in the law during the long Cold War ever expected to have the opportunity to help establish the rule of law and democratic institutions in central and eastern Europe.

Everyone associated with the Central and Eastern European Law Initiative deserves credit for furthering the greatest guarantor of freedom and human rights -- the rule of law -- in Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States. My cong ratulations and thanks to the distinguished members of CEELI's executive and advisory boards, the dedicated staff, and the pro bono liaisons who volunteer their many talents.

Through the pro bono liaisons, each country in the program has received an unparalleled depth and diversity of continuous legal talent from which to learn.

Today, I would like to look at how far we have come and where we are going in the future. First, I want to reflect on some of the progress made in legal reform and the rule of law in Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States sinc e 1991. We have witnessed remarkable changes to which all of you have contributed.

Second, I want to discuss the future direction of USAID's efforts to promote the rule of law in this region and the legacy we hope to leave the countries that we have assisted.

USAID and CEELI began our work in Eastern and Central Europe with the knowledge that these societies either had never previously had working democracies, or democracy had long been absent. Constitutions and written laws often espoused the terms of dem ocracy and justice -- but they had no meaning. They were superseded by the dictates of the ruling party and executive leaders.

Court systems were dominated by the executive branch. Sham trials were common. Judges had no more power than any other party member. Citizens had few rights of expression, association or private property. The fact that many of the forms of a rule o f law were present -- and many of the rights we cherish were given lip service -- made your task more difficult.

The people of these countries had good reason not to believe words, not to trust written laws, the pretense of legal procedures and constitutions.

You -- and USAID -- not only had to help establish the written and procedural guarantees, but to help breathe life into the words, procedures and institutions that would create a true rule of law.

You and the many others who have played a part in the revamping of the legal systems of these countries accepted an enormous, exciting challenge. Many people insisted that democracy and the rule of law must be gradually built up over generations to take hold.

But the stakes were far too high -- both for the people of Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States, and for our own people and the rest of the world -- not to give it your best shot.

You have done that by doing what we lawyers do best -- offering a great deal of advice.

We are now seeing the people and institutions of these countries adopt much of this good advice. CEELI has been among the most important of AID's partners in these endeavors. Since 1992, in more than two dozen countries, CEELI has been a continuing a nd consistent presence advancing the agenda of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. CEELI liaisons and the support of the CEELI program have been essential to many of these efforts.

Countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States have been enacting new civil codes and laws that define the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens. Many new laws that establish basic rights relating to contracts and commercial practices are now in place. Some of these countries have adopted new criminal codes and procedures.

Of course, the rule of law also requires qualified and committed judges -- and judicial autonomy. Judges must be willing to uphold laws that protect individual rights, even when those laws challenge the authority of one or more branches or institutio ns of the government. It is at this crucial point -- whether judges are able and willing to exercise independence and uphold the laws and individual freedom when their rulings would challenge the government -- that we see the real proof of your work.

Since 1991, we have seen the transformation of arbitrage courts in Russia and Ukraine. What were once executive bodies whose primary function was adjudicating production issues particular to planned economies are now courts that resolve commercial dis putes in the context of a market economy.

We have seen broad acceptance of the idea of judicial independence, which has been translated into institutional mechanisms that promote independence. In Bulgaria, Russia and the Kyrgyz Republic, judges are now nominated and supervised by the members of the judiciary itself -- not by the executive branch of the government. There is a focus on the competency of the men and women who sit on the bench.

In Kazhakstan -- and just this spring in Georgia -- examinations have been held to test the legal competence of judges. CEELI liaisons and the support of the CEELI program have been essential to bringing about many of these reforms.

Increasingly, the courts in these regions are acting in a manner that demonstrates a growing independence and commitment to freedom and democracy.

In Georgia, for example, the Supreme Court was instrumental in preserving the license of the independent television station Rustavi-2,

(ROO-STAV'-EE) which had broadcast controversial stories on politics, ethnic relations and organized crime.

In Ukraine, the courts have interpreted and enforced the law governing the March 1998 parliamentary elections, a law drafted and adopted with support from the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, a USAID grantee.

Throughout the region there is a new interest in the rule of law and the legal profession.

Increasing numbers of students are studying law in Central and Eastern Europe and the NIS. CEELI has been instrumental in reforming legal education and restructuring it throughout the region. Many new law faculties have been created since 1991, and t he curricula at many existing faculties has been modernized to keep up with the changing legal framework.

In addition, with the assistance of clinical programs

-- including those supported by CEELI -- many law students now have the opportunity to develop practical professional skills as part of their course of study. These skills will assist them in effectively advancing and protecting the rights of indivi duals in their countries.

We can all be justifiably pleased at the very real changes over the past seven years -- and you can be justifiably proud of CEELI's role in helping to bring about these changes.

Yet we all realize that much remains to be done. What will be the future direction of USAID's support for rule of law work in the CEE and NIS region? Where and how will our assistance be delivered?

USAID designed its efforts in the region to assist two parallel processes. We are helping countries make the transition from totalitarianism to democracy, and -- side by side with our democracy work -- we are assisting them in restructuring their econ omies. This movement from planned economies to market-driven economies capable of sustainable growth is closely linked to the transition to democracy.

As Freedom House noted in its 1997 study Nations in Transit, the CEE and NIS states that had made the greatest progress in creating market economies were the same states that had made the greatest progress in becoming liberal democracies. Simil arly, the four countries that had made the least progress toward democratic reform were the same four countries that had done the least to reform their statist economies.

The northern tier countries have largely completed the transition to democracy and to market economies and no longer need significant donor assistance. Estonia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic have graduated from USAID assistance. Poland, Hungary, Li thuania, Latvia and Slovakia will soon graduate from USAID assistance.

We will continue to focus on the southern tier -- particularly the Balkans -- and the New Independent States -- in terms of both democratic and economic reforms.

When USAID began providing assistance to the CEE and NIS countries, the Congress, the State Department and the Agency always viewed this assistance as relatively short-term aid to help create the frameworks for working democracies.

We have developed strategies for tapering off our assistance to countries as they develop the institutions and momentum necessary to continue their transitions to democracy and market economies on their own. We are beginning to refine criteria, secto r by sector, that will enable us to define the point at which countries have progressed enough to warrant shifting our resources elsewhere.

We know from our experience in the United States that a legal system is never static or perfect. However, certain attributes characterize societies governed by law. These attributes are observable and therefore useful as guides to the need for assist ance.

Among these are:

-- effective legal structures;

-- judicial autonomy;

-- fair access to the legal process;

-- a viable legal profession; and

-- effective anti-corruption and security safeguards.

Performance measurement is another issue that will affect those implementing our future programs involving the rule of law -- including CEELI.

In 1993, Congress passed the "Government Performance and Results Act", which is commonly referred to as GPRA. This Act requires Federal agencies to develop multi-year strategic plans and annual performance plans. We are required to report annually on actual performance compared to goals. Although most federal agencies have until the year 2000 to compare goals to results, USAID volunteered to come into compliance with the Act by the end of fiscal year 1996.

We were required to develop strategic objectives and targets by which to measure the impact of our efforts. As part of complying with the performance and results act, USAID has -- to use a phrase that you have no doubt heard -- "re-engineered" itself. The thrust of this re-engineering was to sharpen our focus on what we are doing and how well we are doing it.

We are no longer simply asking, for example, how many people we have trained. Rather, we are asking whether -- having trained our customers, as we now think of them -- our training has made a difference in the countries we are assisting.

The individual USAID missions decide which of these strategic objectives to adopt and measure and they report on the results achieved.

As our future work in the southern tier and the NIS progresses, we will continue to assess the impact our efforts have had. Legal reform and the concomitant change in ideas and thinking seem difficult to measure in terms of scaleable indicators in yea rly increments.

We will work with you who implement the programs and achieve the results to develop measures of the impact of your programs.

To a large extent, our self-assessments will be based on the five attributes I have enumerated.

This is all part of accountability for taxpayer dollars, another value that is inherent to democracy.

Our ability to maintain our program levels depends, of course, on the resources we have available to us. Proposals currently before Congress would dramatically curtail our assistance programs.

A precipitous drop in our funding levels could require us to accelerate our withdrawal from these countries before these attributes are in place. That would risk imperiling the rule of law and economic reform movements before they have become irre versible. You know how tragically short-sighted such false economies would be after all the sacrifices made during the Cold War years.

In nations where people have long had to find ways of getting around the oppression of government, people must now turn their ingenuity toward seeing that government works.

Taking responsibility for making democracy and justice work also goes well beyond government itself.

CEELI has facilitated the formation of numerous institutions which support the rule of law and the continued deepening of democracy.

Among them are nongovernmental organizations -- including judicial associations, lawyers' associations, and legal clinics. These groups can focus on key issues and find or provide fora in which to publicize and raise their concerns. They can act as a public conscience and help to counterbalance both excesses and lapses of the government. They can be an important force to promote ongoing democratic growth and to check regression.

Of course, judicial and lawyers' associations also benefit their members by providing information, training and opportunities to share ideas. The resulting stimulation and development of ideas and techniques will enable these men and women to promote the enforcement of adopted laws and the continued strengthening of the rule of law and legal institutions.

Unlike governmental institutions, NGOs cannot rely on annual appropriations to finance their activities. Self-sustainability is essential to ensuring that NGO's play their role in these newly democratic societies. As Americans we take for granted the ability to organize around a cause, raise money and find civic-minded individuals to govern organizations from which they derive no economic benefit.

None of this is easy in regions which have no tradition of such organizations. Establishing these NGOs at a time when individuals are scrambling to survive economically makes it doubly difficult. Yet making sure that NGOs in the region not only funct ion -- but survive -- is critically important.

More than a century-and-a-half ago, a young Frenchman named Alexis de Tocqueville recognized the central importance to American democracy of our penchant for joining together in associations to address all manner of problems, needs and hopes. He noted that they mitigated differences between people by forcing them to get to know each other and acknowledge each other's needs and opinions.

De Tocqueville also saw that these non-governmental organizations played an even larger role in democratic societies. He understood that they were a part of educating what he called "the habits of the heart" -- which he considered the greatest bulwark of democracy.

Our goal is that USAID and CEELI will leave behind institutions that continue the development and transmission of democratic ideas.

Meeting the challenge of developing these self-sustaining institutions -- by identifying membership, procedures and purposes, and sharing knowledge and techniques -- is vital.

I look forward to USAID's continued association with CEELI and our joint efforts to assist countries in establishing democracy and the rule of law.

In the United States, we often take for granted our Constitutional protections of free speech, free press, freedom of religion and association and assembly. You have wrestled with how to enshrine these fundamental freedoms not only in laws, but in the practices and institutions that support them, both inside of and outside of government.

Elections are not enough -- the "habits of the heart" must join with the governmental structures to make democracy and justice work.

The rule of law is bolstered by sound legislation, but it cannot be legislated. The rule of law goes much deeper than abiding by legislation passed -- it goes to those "habits of the heart" which demand justice for all and which accept a share of pers onal responsibility for creating and maintaining justice in society.

These habits are strengthened every time a person receives justice at the hands of the courts, every time the police respect the rights of a suspect, every time a jury does its sworn duty.

Respect for justice and the rule of law remain the greatest guarantee of freedom, democracy and human rights, the best alternative to violent conflict.

Thank you, I'll turn this back to Tom.

[who will serve as master of ceremonies for questions]

This is an archived USAID document retained on this web site as a matter of public record.

Last Updated on: July 18, 2001