* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
By Saad Mustafa
The United Nations currently directs 16 peacekeeping operations in various parts of the world. Over 96,000 uniformed personnel and nearly 18,000 civilian workers are employed as part of this effort. Recently, not only have peace support operations themselves increased on a large scale, but so have stories of corruption within such missions. When soldiers are sent into combat situations they are particularly prone to corruption because they need to contend with corruption that:
- can be endemic in the mission country;
- may manifest in areas that are the responsibility of contributing nations;
- may occur within the mission itself
In 2007, a UN taskforce discovered that millions of dollars of contracting money for food, fuel and construction was lost to corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Haiti. Corruption within missions can pose severe problems to the success of the mandate as has been evidenced by the UN peacekeeping missions in Côte d'Ivoire and East Timor. Given such examples it is crucial that both militaries and peacekeeping forces instil anti-corruption provisions within their respective doctrines. A clear tone from the top that corruption will not be tolerated and will lead to strict disciplinary action can implant good behaviour within the rank and file.
Take Afghanistan and Iraq as additional examples. Experience in both countries has proven that contracting during wartime situations, or expeditionary contracting as it is often known, can significantly increase the risk of corruption. An American Congressional committee estimated that between $31 to $60 billion dollars of American taxpayer money had been lost to waste and fraud in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That works out to one in every six contracting dollars spent by the country. Appropriate checks and balances and proper monitoring and evaluation mechanisms were not instituted to make sure that money was spent efficiently, transparently and for the purposes that it was intended. Other countries that have a significant footprint in conflicts or peacekeeping situations face similar risks. Instilling greater scrutiny of service contractors through stronger monitoring and evaluation tools and opening tenders up for full and open competition helps mitigate such risks. Another tool that can help is greater anti-corruption training to those in theatre. This can help in not only identifying sources of corruption in-country but more importantly how and through what mechanisms such corruption can be countered.
The last decade has also witnessed a greater dependency on private security contractors (PSCs) in conflict situations. This has not, however, been accompanied by the appropriate levels of oversight and scrutiny of their work and behaviour. According to former Pentagon acquisition chief Jacques Gansler, lax government administration of warzone contracts created a climate of corruption, resulting in fraud, waste and abuse. In 2012, the US Department of Justice announced that it was filing a lawsuit against private security firm Triple Canopy for defrauding the government on a security contract in Iraq. The firm had initially won a $10 million contract to provide security to the second largest US airbase. Yet, the government claims that the company billed the government for hundreds of security guards who did not meet firearms proficiency requirements. In all environments there is serious need for strong legislation to either outlaw PSCs or strictly control their behaviour.
There are a number of factors that can increase corruption risk in an operational context – organised crime, lack of political will to address underlying issues, and lack of accountability and systemic corruption in the police and other national institutions. Although there are a number of tools available to Ministries of Defence to tackle this, the first step has to be governments assessing and evaluating what particular risks they are exposed to and how they can combat them. Corruption in operations wastes scarce resources, jeopardises mission success, and puts the lives of soldiers fighting on the ground at risk.
Saad Mustafa is the Research Lead at TI-Defence and Security
This is the second in a series of five blogs introducing the five major corruption risk areas in the defence and security sectors leading up to the release of Transparency International Defence and Security Program’s new Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index on the 23rd of January. The index will provide a detailed analysis of the operational corruption risks faced by 82 countries around the world. The information will also highlight good practice examples that can be adopted to mitigate the risk of corruption.
Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook
