Mounting Debt Crisis Raises Humanitarian Challenges

https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/economy/new-humanitarian-approaches-are-vital-instead-of-imf-austerity-4dd838d0-89c7-4822-9960-589e57a3aff6

Dinero sucio: de Rusia a Occidente, pasando por Londres

Dirty Money: From Russia to the West via London

Francis Ghiles April 25, 2022

 ESGLOBAL - Spain

Política, economía e ideas sobre el mundo en español 

https://www.esglobal.org/dinero-sucio-de-rusia-a-occidente-pasando-por-londres/

Categoría: corrupción Economía Estados Unidos Libros Política y sociedad Reino Unido Rusia Unión Europea

(English translation follows here from the original article in Spanish)

 Butler to the World: How Britain Became the Servant of Tycoons, Tax Dodgers, Kleptocrats and Criminals

Oliver Bullough

Profile Books, 2022

 The Enablers: How the West Supports Kleptocrats and Corruption – Endangering Our Democracy

Frank Vogl

Rowman and Littlefield, 2022

Dos cauces de dinero sostienen al presidente Vladímir Putin y sus colegas cleptócratas: el primero lleva el dinero occidental a Rusia para pagar el petróleo y el gas y el otro lo lleva de vuelta, una vez robado, para guardarlo de forma segura en los mercados inmobiliarios, las universidades y los partidos políticos europeos y norteamericanos. Los Papeles de Panamá dejaron claro de qué forma las multinacionales occidentales se aseguran los derechos de perforación de petróleo y gas en Rusia (pero también en Nigeria, Angola, etcétera) y quién estaba detrás de las empresas de propiedad anónima registradas en lugares como Guernsey, Chipre, las Islas Vírgenes Británicas y Luxemburgo, que forman parte de las economías occidentales. La lucha contra la marea, cada vez mayor, de dinero sucio ha adquirido nuevo impulso desde la invasión rusa de Ucrania, aunque sea difícil creer al primer ministro británico Boris Johnson cuando dice que “en Reino Unido no hay cabida para el dinero sucio”. Estas afirmaciones resultan ridículas cuando se piensa en la enorme presencia de los principales oligarcas rusos en el mundo inmobiliario y la sociedad de Londres, como donantes de sus grandes universidades y del Partido Conservador, que está inundado de dinero ruso. Por algo la ciudad recibe el apodo de Londongrado. Los beneficiarios de la generosidad rusa consideran a Putin más un padrino que un hombre de Estado. Lo malo es que, después de haber asesinado a disidentes exiliados en el extranjero, su ejército está arrasando Ucrania y asesinando a miles de ucranianos.

Lo que el periodista del FT Tom Burgis denomina Kleptopia libra una guerra no convencional contra la democracia desde hace dos décadas. Hay banqueros, abogados y políticos entre los sobornados, y, aunque se ha escrito más sobre Londres, hace poco hemos visto publicados The Butler to the World (El mayordomo del mundo) de Oliver Bullough y The Enablers: How the West Supports Kleptocrats and Corruption de Frank Vogl, donde Estados Unidos sigue siendo el principal culpable. El autor del primer libro, tan apasionante como un thriller, reconoce que los rusos son los únicos que pueden resolver el problema de Putin pero cree que, por lo menos, podríamos cortarle las alas e impedirles a él y a sus cómplices el acceso a nuestro sistema financiero. Más vale tarde que nunca: la UE y EE UU, por fin, están tomando unas medidas que si se mantienen, con el tiempo, impedirán que los gobernantes rusos entierren su riqueza en lo más profundo de nuestras economías, que sus hijos estudien en colegios ingleses y que sus yates vuelen bajo bandera de los paraísos fiscales británicos. Bullough critica al Reino Unido en un libro lleno de vida. Frank Vogl, periodista económico de largo recorrido, reprende a la clase financiera internacional en un análisis forense con la ventaja de haber trabajado como asesor de comunicación de múltiples instituciones financieras. Hace falta valor para lamentar en qué se ha convertido la profesión que tan bien conoce.

El libro de Oliver Bullough es un relato condenatorio de hasta qué punto ha sacrificado el Reino Unido su integridad en el altar del dinero sucio. Las instituciones británicas, sus leyes y sus tan proclamados valores de honestidad y confianza están profundamente corrompidos por las acciones de banqueros codiciosos, abogados oportunistas y diputados siempre dispuestos a hacer la vista gorda ante cualquier artimaña legal que pueda ayudar a que el dinero —aunque muchas veces sea de dudosa procedencia— fluya hacia la City y la clase dirigente. Es un retrato salvaje de un país que ha perdido su alma y su reputación. ¿Por qué y cómo un país como el Reino Unido se ha convertido en criado —o mayordomo— de los autócratas de todo el mundo? Bullough cuenta la historia con un sentido del humor tranquilo y pesimista que hace que sus retratos forenses de los personajes que permitieron esa descomposición sean aún más convincentes. Los oligarcas rusos, como los ricos árabes y nigerianos, valoran el Estado de derecho en Gran Bretaña siempre que los deje en paz. Entre la población local que se ha beneficiado hay gente tan variada como, por ejemplo, contables, trabajadoras del sexo, banqueros, paseadores de perros, guardaespaldas y universidades.

Los ejemplos detallados a veces son aterradores, incluso para este escritor que empezó a trabajar en la City de Londres en 1972 y permaneció allí un cuarto de siglo. Hace diez años pregunté a un viejo amigo mío, hijo de un conde, por qué su hermano, recién retirado del servicio diplomático británico, se había ido a trabajar para un oligarca ruso. La respuesta fue tajante: “Todos somos prostituibles, de alguna manera tenemos que ganar dinero”. Las cloacas que transportan dinero sucio han manchado la reputación de Cambridge y la LSE y han salpicado a la familia real, algunos de cuyos miembros pueden sufrir un proceso de “colonización a la inversa”, según la hilarante descripción del periodista y escritor británico, Simon Kuper. El príncipe Andrés vendió su mansión de Sunninghill Park por 15 millones de libras esterlinas, es decir, 3 millones por encima del precio inicial de venta, a Timur Kulibáyev, multimillonario y yerno del expresidente de Kazajistán. Es conocida su amistad con uno de los hijos de Muammar Gaddafi, Saif, y con un yerno del exdictador tunecino Ben Alí, Sakr el Matri. Ya en 2014, Lubov Chernukhin, cuyo marido fue ministro de Putin, pagó 160.000 libras esterlinas para jugar al tenis con Boris Johnson, que entonces era alcalde de Londres. Chernukhin ha donado al Partido Conservador más de 2 millones de libras desde que se convirtió en ciudadana británica.

El Reino Unido, que había perdido un imperio y no encontraba su papel —según la cruel, pero certera opinión del exsecretario de Estado norteamericano, Dean Acheson—, después de la humillación de Suez, en 1957, empezó la circulación de dinero en todo el mundo sin hacer preguntas. Cuando informaba sobre los mercados internacionales de capitales para el FT, en el periodo 1977-1981, se podía decir que las consecuencias negativas de esa política estaban contenidas. Frank Vogl, que conoce muy bien el mundo de la banca, menciona los nombres de Paul Volcker, durante mucho tiempo presidente de la Reserva Federal, y el director general del Bank of America, Tom Clausen.  Después de que el primero se retirara y el segundo se incorporara al Banco Mundial, ambos trataron de solucionar los fallos del sistema. Los dos eran hombres íntegros. Los dos comprendían la necesidad de una regulación. Mientras los banqueros inventaban vehículos de inversión cada vez más sofisticados, la Reserva Federal y otros reguladores no lograron evitar el derrumbe que se produjo de forma espectacular en 2008.

Desde luego, Vogl tiene razón cuando dice que Estados Unidos debe tomar la iniciativa. Sus bancos y su sector financiero en general son mucho más poderosos que los del Reino Unido, y cuenta con héroes dispuestos a luchar, ya sean ONG o el Congreso: el difunto senador Carl Levin incluyó unas cláusulas contra el blanqueo de dinero en la Ley Patriótica aprobada tras el 11S y el sistema judicial del país ha demostrado su poder, no siempre, pero sí lo suficiente como para justificar cierto optimismo. El senador Sheldon Whitehouse ha advertido de la existencia de un nuevo “choque de civilizaciones, entre la civilización del Estado de derecho y una civilización autocrática y cleptocrática”. Junto con el exdirector general de la CIA David Petraeus ha advertido de que “la corrupción no solo es una de las armas más poderosas que esgrimen los rivales autoritarios de Estados Unidos, sino que también es, en muchos casos, lo que sostiene a esos regímenes en el poder, y es su talón de Aquiles”. Algunos legisladores estadounidenses y otros altos cargos de la clase dirigente norteamericana parecen haber comprendido, mejor que en Londres, que “la lucha contra la corrupción no es una mera cuestión moral y legal; es ya una cuestión estratégica y un campo de batalla de la rivalidad entre las grandes potencias”.

El autor reconoce que quienes combaten la corrupción no se rendirán, porque comparten un gran sentimiento de injusticia. Cree que no dejarán de alzar la voz hasta lograr soluciones concretas y eficaces para sus legítimas preocupaciones. Destaca esta cita: “Las estrechas relaciones entre las empresas occidentales y los regímenes cleptócratas significan que nuestros gobiernos son cómplices de esos regímenes y, por el momento, los cleptócratas están ganando”. Este libro se escribió antes del ataque ruso contra Ucrania y la congelación sin precedentes de bienes públicos y privados rusos en Occidente. Esperemos que los líderes occidentales hayan abierto los ojos, pero las presiones de las grandes empresas occidentales —entre otras, las del sector de la defensa— cuando persiguen los grandes contratos con China, Rusia, los productores de gas y petróleo de Oriente Medio y África, etcétera, es enorme. Hasta que no se tomen medidas más sistemáticas contra los facilitadores, no se ganará la guerra.

Frank Vogl fue uno de los cofundadores de Transparency International en 1993. Otras ONG como GFI (Integridad Financiera Global), POGO (Proyecto sobre la Supervisión del Gobierno) y FACT (Coalición para la Responsabilidad Financiera y la Transparencia Corporativa), que es una alianza no partidista de más de cien organizaciones estatales, nacionales e internacionales que trabajan por un sistema fiscal justo, están haciendo todos los esfuerzos para contribuir a limpiar el sistema. Vogl no es el único que teme que el celo actual de las autoridades occidentales contra los oligarcas rusos se desvanezca con el tiempo. Los oligarcas siguen teniendo un poder temible, porque se hicieron con el control de las mayores empresas de Rusia a principios y mediados de los 90, en una época en la que era imprescindible estar conectados con el entorno del presidente Yeltsin, disponer de la protección de la mafia y tener vínculos opacos con los bancos rusos.

La Red de Justicia Fiscal del Reino Unido resume el reto con unas palabras que constituyen una conclusión apropiada sobre el enorme peligro que supone para la democracia nuestra historia de amor con el dinero sucio: “Décadas de cortejar las finanzas de dictadores, evasores de impuestos y el crimen organizado a base de ofrecer secreto financiero y regulaciones ciegas han hecho casi imposible que los gobiernos (occidentales) puedan rastrear los miles de millones que posee en activos y patrimonio, el objetivo de las sanciones. Se calcula que hay alrededor de 10 billones de dólares a resguardo de forma anónima en paraísos fiscales. De modo que las cuatro preguntas que hay que responder son las siguientes:

¿Aumentarán los gobiernos occidentales los presupuestos de sus departamentos de justicia?

¿Aprobarán normas y leyes sobre beneficiarios reales que impidan la existencia de vacíos legales?

¿Acabarán con los sistemas de “visados y pasaportes de oro” que muchos países ofrecen a los superricos?

¿Instituirán nuevas leyes para llevar a prisión a los facilitadores occidentales de los oligarcas rusos y de otros países si siguen ayudando a los blanqueadores de dinero?

El papel de Estados Unidos es esencial en esta lucha, pero la Unión Europea no tiene por qué esperar a que actúen Londres o Washington. La seguridad futura de Europa y la solidez de sus instituciones democráticas dependen de que se barra de los establos de Augías el dinero de la delincuencia internacional.

Traducción de María Luisa Rodríguez Tapia.

========================================================================

 English translation

Dirty Money: From Russia to the West via London

Francis Ghiles

wwwesglobal.org

Twin pipelines of money sustain President Vladimir Putin and his fellow kleptocrats: the first carries western money to Russia to pay for oil and gas, the other carries it back out again, after it has been stolen, to be safely kept in European and US property markets, universities and political parties. The Panama Papers made clear how western multinationals secure oil and gas drilling rights in Russia (but also in Nigeria, Angola etc), who was behind the companies of anonymous ownership registered in places like Guernsey, Cyprus, the British Virgin Island but also Luxembourg that participate in western economies. The fight against the rising tide of dirty money has acquired new momentum since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine even if it is hard to believe the UK prime minister Boris Johnson when he says that “there is no place for dirty money in the UK.” Such assertions are laughable considering the huge presence of leading Russian oligarchs in the London property and social scene, as donators to its leading universities and the Tory party which is awash with Russian cash. Not for nothing is it known as Londongrad. Those who benefit from Russian largesse see Putin as a Godfather rather than a statesman. The problem is that after murdering exiled dissidents abroad, his army is now laying waste Ukraine and murdering thousands of Ukrainians.

What the FT reporter Tom Burgis describes as Kleptopia and its unconventional war against democracy has been underway for two decades. Bankers, lawyers and politicians have all enjoyed getting their palms greased and though London has been more written about, most recently as The Butler to the World (1), the US remains the major culprit (2). The author of the first book, which can be read like a thriller admits that while only the Russians can solve the problem of Putin, we could at least cut his wings by depriving him and his cronies of their access to our financial system. Better late than never as the EU and the Us are finally taking measures which, if implemented over time will prevent Russia’s rulers from burying their wealth deep in our economies, prevent their children from studying in English schools and their yatchs from flying under the flags of British tax havens. Bullough has taken to the UK to task in a very spirited book. Frank Vogl, a former economic journalist takes the international financial class to task in a forensic analysis which benefits from the fact that he has acted as communications adviser to financial institutions. Lamenting what has become of the profession he knows so well requires grit.

Oliver Bullough’s book is a damning account of just how much integrity the United Kingdom has sacrificed at the altar of dirty money. British institutions, its laws, its oft proclaimed values of honesty and trustworthiness have been deeply corrupted by grasping bankers, opportunistic lawyers and MPs always ready to turn a blind eye to any legal devise which might help money, often from questionable sources, flow to the City and the establishment. It is a savage portrait of a country which has lost its soul and reputation. Why and how a country like the UK was transformed into a handmaid – or butler - of autocrats across the world? Bullough tells the story with a quiet despairing humour which makes his forensic portraits of the characters who enabled this decay all the more compelling. The detailed examples are at times terrifying, including to this writer who worked in the City of London for a quarter of a century after 1972. Having asked a friend of his, whose father was an earl,  why his brother who had recently retired from the diplomatic service had gone to work for a Russian oligarch, he answered: “we are all whores, we have to make money somehow.” The sewers carrying dirty money have blemished the reputation of Cambridge and LSE and engulfed the royal family – Prince Andrew’s friendship with the son of Muammar Gaddafi’s son Saif and a son in law of the former Tunisian dictator Ben Ali, Sakr el Matri,  is on the record.

Having lost an empire but not found a role in the cruel but correct assessment of the former secretary of state Dean Acheson, the United Kingdom started, after its humiliation at Suez, in 1957, to facilitate money flows around the world, no questions asked. When I covered international capital markets for the FT in 1977-81, one could argue that the negative fallout of this policy was contained. Frank Vogl who knows the banking world very well mentions the names of Paul Volcker, long time president of the Federal Reserve and the CEO of Bank of America, Tom Clausen.  After the first retired and the second joined the World Bank, they tried to address the faults of the system. Both were men of integrity. Both understood the need for regulation. As bankers invented ever more sophisticated investment vehicles, the Federal Reserve and other regulators failed to prevent a crash which occurred, in spectacular fashion in 2008.

Vogl is certainly right to argue that the US must give the lead. Its banks and broader financial sector are much more powerful than the UK and its does have heroes, be they NGOs or Congress: the late senator Carl Levin attached anti-money laundering provisions to the Patriot Act after 9/11 and the country’s justice system has shown it has teeth, not always but sufficiently often to warrant some optimism.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has warned of a new “clash of civilisations between a rule of law civilisation and an autocratic, kleptocratic civilisation”. Together with former CIA director general David Petraeus, he has warned that “corruption is not only one of the most potent weapons wielded by America’s authoritarian rivals, it is also, in many cases, what sustains these regimes in power and is their Achilles heel.” More so than in London, certain US lawmakers and other senior members of the establishment seem to have understood that “the fight against corruption is more than a moral and a legal issue; it has become a strategic one – and a battle ground in great power competition.

The author admits that despite the protests against corruption, those who fight it will not give up because they share a great sense of injustice. He believes that they will not cease to raise their voices until there are concrete effective responses to their valid concerns. Until recently, “the entanglements between western business, and kleptocratic regimes find our governments being complicit with these regimes, and right now the kleptocrats are winning.” This book was written before the Russian onslaught on Ukraine and the unprecedented freezing of Russian public and private assets in the west. One can only hope that the eyes of western leaders are opened but the pressure exercised by big western corporations, not least in defence, when they go after big ticket contracts with China, Russia, Middle East and African oil and gas producers etc is huge.  Until the enablers are targeted more systematically, the war will not be won.

Frank Vogl was one of the co-founders of Transparency International in 1993. Others NGOs such as GFI, Global Financial Integrity, POGO, The Project on Government Oversight and FACT, the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition which is a non-partisan alliance of more than 100 state, national and international organizations working towards a fair tax system are fighting hard to help clean up the system. Frank Vogl is not alone in worrying that the current zeal of Western authorities to go after Russian oligarchs with decline with time. They still represent a formidable force, taking control of the largest corporations in Russia in the early and mid-1990s at a time when it was essential to have connections to President Yeltsin’s entourage, mafia protection and opaque ties to Russian banks.

The UK’s Tax Justice Network sums up the challenge in words with offer an apt conclusion to the huge danger to democracy that our love affair with dirty money presents:” Decades of courting finance from dictators, tax evaders and organise crime with financial secrecy services and eyes wide-shut regulations have made it nearly impossible for (Western) government to track down the billions in assets and wealth held by their sanction target. An estimated $10trillion is held offshore anonymously by wealthy individuals. So the four questions that need to be answered are the following:

1)    Will western governments boost budgets for their justice departments?

2)    Will they approve beneficial ownership rules and laws that block loopholes?

3)    Will they end the “golden visa and passport” systems that numerous countries offer the super-rich?

4)    Will they establish new laws that put Western enablers of Russian and other oligarchs into jail if they continue to aid and abet money launderers?

The role of the US is essential in this fight but the European Union does not have to wait for London or Washington to move. The future safety of Europe and the strength of its democratic institutions depend on cleaning up the Augean stables of international criminal money.

(1)   Butler to the World: How Britain became the servant of tycoons, tax dodgers, kleptocrats and criminals, Oliver Bullough, Profile Books

(2)   The Enablers: How the West supports kleptocrats and corruption – endangering our democracy, Frank Vogl, Rowman and Littlefield

Afghanistan's Long History of Corruption Ends in Disaster

A version of this article was first published on www.Inkstockmedia.com on August 26, 2021.

By Frank Vogl

For almost two decades the citizens of Afghanistan may well have believed that American and allied forces in their country could establish conditions corresponding to Article 1 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Afghans did not just rely upon foreigners to attain better lives for themselves. At least 66,000 Afghan soldiers died during the war. A conservative estimate by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) suggests that at a minimum 48,000 Afghan civilians were killed, and at least 75,000 were injured since 2001.

In reaction to the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration sought to destroy terrorists and those that aided terrorists in Afghanistan. The mission was achieved rapidly. The follow-up mission was to ensure that Afghanistan remained free of terrorists that could attack the US homeland. According to SIGAR, in addition to thousands of dead, and even more injured Afghans, this mission saw 2,443 American soldiers die in action and 20,666 US troops injured. It points out that the US spent $837 billion on warfighting, and a further $145 billion on reconstruction and development, including building Afghan security forces, civilian government institutions, economy, and civil society. These latter efforts were supplemented by billions more dollars from development aid agencies. For example, since 2002, more than $12 billion has been used to finance development projects and the government’s budget through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund that has been managed by the World Bank on behalf of 34 official bilateral and multilateral donors. 

So, what happened? 

NATION-BUILDING HAPPENED — SORT OF

Gradually the US mission expanded to evolve many elements of nation-building, although this was never fully acknowledged by US presidents. US administrations have long sought to avoid expressly tying US foreign engagements — be they those in conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or to dozens of countries through USAID — to nation-building. The term “nation-building,” however, has been seen as committing to a multi-year costly engagement that is difficult to sell to the American people. Accordingly, in the case of Afghanistan, the gradual widening of US engagement, from purely military activities, to direct involvement in many aspects of the government, to elections, to developing schools and other social services, was always explained in terms of reconstruction and adding to the security of the country.

It is important to acknowledge that those who sacrificed their lives did not die in vain. They contributed to providing many Afghans with hope for a brighter future for themselves and their children. For example, according SIGAR’s August 2021 report:  

“By 2018, life expectancy had jumped from 56 to 65, a 16 percent increase. Between 2000 and 2019, the mortality rate of children under five plummeted by more than 50 percent. Between 2001 and 2019, Afghanistan’s human development index increased 45 percent. Between 2002 and 2019, Afghanistan’s GDP per capita nearly doubled, and overall GDP nearly tripled, even accounting for inflation. Between 2005 and 2017, literacy among 15- to 24-year-olds increased by 28 percentage points among males and 19 points among females, primarily driven by increases in rural areas.”

At a minimum, a nation-building strategy in a very poor country emerging from conflict needs to include: Ensuring the personal safety of citizens; creating social safety nets and basic income-generating opportunities; establishing citizen rights under the law; and building citizen confidence and trust in government. Critical to progress on these fronts are the development of governmental institutions that ensure that the actions of those in power are transparent, that these officials and politicians are accountable to the citizens, and that nobody is above the law. Success, over time in nation-building, requires institutions and practices of justice and law enforcement that citizens view as honest and that treat all, from the poorest to the nation’s leaders, as equal before the law. In other words, nation-building is a painfully slow and complicated process that has no guarantees, and is all the harder when pursued by a foreign occupier when conflict is ever-present, as the US found in Afghanistan. 

In Afghanistan, the US assigned highest priority to security and despite massive troop deployment and expenditures, its success declined as the years passed. The Taliban and organized crime groups gathered in strength and became increasingly present in Afghanistan due to a considerable degree to the consistent support from Pakistan’s military and it’s intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). While the White House repeatedly confronted Pakistani authorities about their support to the Taliban, and even urged Pakistan to use its leverage to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, Pakistan insisted that it’s relationship with the Taliban was weak and that they did not have any kind of control over the group. This back-and-forth, especially over the last five years, has created fissures in the US–Pakistan relationship that negatively impacted the US mission in Afghanistan. Journalists Carlotta Gall and Steve Coll both do an excellent job explaining this complex dynamic, and highlight the Pakistani authorities’ ability to run rings around US military leaders and diplomats alike.

From bases in Pakistan, organized crime groups, especially closely aligned to the Taliban and in league with many Afghan regional officials, greatly expanded opium production in the country. Organized crime and government corruption so often go hand-in-hand, and Afghanistan is no exception. In its August 2021 report to Congress, SIGAR noted: “The US government has spent nearly $9 billion on counter-narcotics efforts since 2002, in part due to concerns that narcotics trafficking funded Taliban activities. Despite the investment, the cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan has trended upward for two decades.”  

As the years rolled by, as scholar Sarah Chayes has so well described in her 2015 book, “Thieves of State – Why Corruption Threatens Global Security,” Afghans at every level were subject to extortion on a daily basis. There was no trust in the judiciary. The police were bribed. Graft defined the regional and national systems of government. The failures of the justice system at every level added to insecurity and undermined efforts by President Ashraf Ghani to build public confidence in the central government.

THE REAL SCANDAL

The scandal is that every US and allied leader — political, diplomatic, and military — knew this, yet failed to confront the problem with sufficient priority. Reporting by foreign correspondents from Afghanistan, studies by experts, mountains of books, not to mention official government reports, all highlighted the rising levels of corruption.

For example, in August 2009, reporter Elizabeth Rubin interviewed Ashraf Ghani, one of then-President Hamid Karzai’s political opponents, who said: “I judge a president by his record and his company. We ranked 117 on Transparency International (the Corruption Perceptions Index of 180 countries) in 2005. Now we rank 176, the fifth most corrupt country on earth. It happened on his watch.” Ghani came in fourth in that year’s elections but was eventually elected president in 2014. A 2010 State Department cable from Kabul reported Afghan National Security Advisor Rangin Spanta as saying that “corruption is not just a problem for the system of governance in Afghanistan; it is the system of governance.” Afghanistan’s corruption, therefore, was not a secret. 

INSUFFICIENT SUPPORT TO COMBAT CORRUPTION 

Ghani came into power in 2014 determined to counter corruption. He wanted help form civil society and invited Transparency International (TI) to a meeting in Kabul. TI is the largest global anti-corruption organization represented in over 100 countries, which I co-founded in 1993. While I had never visited the country, it fell to me to convene a TI working group to plan for the meeting. I engaged colleagues from a range of countries who all had extensive experience in Afghanistan.

THE SCANDAL IS THAT EVERY US AND ALLIED LEADER — POLITICAL, DIPLOMATIC, AND MILITARY — KNEW HOW PERVASIVE CORRUPTION WAS IN AFGHANISTAN, YET FAILED TO CONFRONT THE PROBLEM WITH SUFFICIENT PRIORITY.

Our working group members stressed that there were many Afghans in the armed forces, government, business, and civil society who were determined to counter corruption and needed far greater foreign support. We concluded that we would recommend to President Ghani that the immediate actions he should launch in Kabul include: Establishing an anti-corruption commission with prosecutorial power; promoting public declarations of assets; establishing a public procurement committee; pushing for anti-corruption reforms in customs and revenue systems; and develop/strengthen conflict of interest regime for all public officials.

President Ghani hosted a meeting of representatives of several anti-corruption civil society organizations in his office, including Global Witness, Integrity Watch Afghanistan, and TI. In that meeting, he made it clear that he already knew what had to be done and he berated civil society for not giving him enough public support. The TI set of recommendations that had been prepared was never given a full hearing. We received a better hearing in London and in Washington, but I doubt our proposals and our warnings reached high enough levels. However, thanks to the efforts of my TI colleagues, to Sarah Chayes and to many others, there was increasing US military leadership understanding that basic security in the country demanded a major assault on corruption and that building trust in the institutions of justice was vital to the nation’s security. 

Generals candidly talked about the corruption issues before Congressional panels. For example, back in 2011, Admiral Michael Mullen, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told US Senate’s Armed Services Committee in a public hearing: 

“If we continue to draw down forces apace while such public and systemic corruption is left unchecked, we will risk leaving behind a government in which we cannot reasonably expect Afghans to have faith. At best this would lead to continued localized conflicts as neighborhood strongmen angle for their cut, and the people for their survival; at worst it could lead to government collapse and civil war.”

After all, how could you ask Afghans to risk their lives in combat for a nation run by politicians, other officials, and military leaders who overwhelmingly abused their positions to enrich themselves at the direct expense of the people they were in public office to support?

Nevertheless, there was never sufficient support for the anti-corruption programs by either Afghan or foreign leaders. Public trust by Afghans in their government was never obtained meaningfully. The massive US reconstruction aid, according to SIGAR reports, was far beyond the absorptive capacity of the country. SIGAR has repeatedly documented in public reports how the funds were often disbursed so swiftly without adequate accountability that they added significantly to the already very high levels of corruption.

WILL THERE BE ANY ACCOUNTABILITY? 

Shame on all our US and allied political, diplomatic, and military leaders who over so many years were responsible for adding to corruption in Afghanistan. Shame on them for not listening to all the critics and for not reading all the expert reports that highlighted how US strategies failed to build public trust in government and in the institutions of justice. 

These arrogant high officials repeatedly underestimated how the increasing levels of corruption and organized crime were bound to undermine the Ghani government, trust in Afghan generals, and American leadership. Now, the citizens of Afghanistan are left to Taliban terror.