Category Archives: Guest Commentary

Guest Post: First Country Ratifies the Asset Declaration Treaty

Posted on by
Reply

Requiring public official to disclose their assets, income, and other information about their personal finances can be an important tool for curbing corruption — as any number of posts on this blog have shown (examples here, here, and here. The program’s effectiveness depends crucially on the ability to verify the disclosures’ accuracy and in particular the ease with which verifiers can determine if an official has hidden assets abroad. A new Treaty greatly facilitates this task. Its ratification should be at the top of national anticorruption authorities to do list.

GAB is pleased to publish this guest post explaining the Treaty and its origins authored by Tilman Hoppe, an international expert on asset declarations, who played the critical role in the Treaty’s development.

Effective August 23, 2024, North Macedonia has ratified the “International Treaty on Exchange of Data for the Verification of Asset Declarations.” By doing so, North Macedonia has written history. The Treaty is the first and only mechanism for cross-border data exchange for the verification of asset declarations. Three more countries have signed the Treaty and will now have to catch up in ratifying. Other countries are about to sign – any country may join the Treaty, as may the European Union as a bloc.

The Treaty addresses the following gap: Corrupt public officials hide their wealth abroad. At the same time, bodies verifying asset declarations lack access to data abroad. This is the number one reason cited by verification bodies to explain why they can only unlock a fraction of asset declarations’ potential: Following wealth usually stops at domestic borders. Neither the UNCAC nor any other international treaty address this problem.

A significant advance in international efforts to curb corruption, the Treaty emerged from an unlikely set of circumstances:

Continue reading →

Guest Post: The Need for Better Monitoring and Evaluation of Anticorruption Projects

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s guest post comes from Tom Shipley, a researcher at the Centre for the Study of Corruption at the University of Sussex.

While the anticorruption field is rife with disagreements and debates about “what works,” one thing that pretty much everyone can agree on is the need for more and better evidence. This is why it is so important that governments and other organizations engage in appropriate monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities to assess the impact of their anticorruption work. Lots of organizations conduct M&E activity—but how good is it? A new report developed at the Centre for the Study of Corruption and published with the U4 Anticorruption Resource Centre seeks to provide a comprehensive review of anticorruption M&E in development cooperation. The report, which is based on a structured review of 91 evaluation reports published by 11 development agencies and non-governmental organizations, examines the M&E evidence available for a range of anticorruption measures implemented in a wide range of countries.

The findings are disappointing. Although there are some high-quality evaluations, the review demonstrates there are systematic problems with the quality of the evidence produced through M&E. Continue reading →

Guest Post: From Revolution to Reform — Tracing Armenia’s Anti-Corruption Landscape

Posted on by
Reply

It is now two decades plus since the fight against corruption emerged as a major issue. One that has been a particular challenge in nations still struggling to overcome the legacy of communism. Today’s Guest Post tracks recent progress Armenia, where voters in 2018 traded a deeply corrupt, semi authoritarian government for one promising both less corruption and more democracy. Its authors: Jeffrey Hallock, a PhD candidate at American University researching anti-corruption reform strategies, and a researcher at the Accountability Research Center utilizing open government data to analyze U.S. foreign funding trends, and Karine Ghahramanyan, a senior at the American University of Armenia pursuing a degree in Politics and Governance.

Armenia, a landlocked country of 2.8 million, sits in the middle of a region defined by political uncertainty. Six years after Nikol Pashinyan spearheaded Armenia’s Velvet Revolution with a promise to eradicate systemic corruption, many regard Prime Minister Pashinyan’s efforts as stalling. Although corruption has noticeably decreased since 2018 (here), the government’s initial emphasis on anti-corruption measures has been overtaken by urgent security considerations, its 2020 defeat by neighbor and long-time adversary Azerbaijan followed by unsettling developments in neighbors Georgia, Turkey, and Iran.

Armenia’s burgeoning democracy and recent reforms have helped strengthen its position amid broader volatility, contributing to economic growth and deepening relations with democratic allies. Yet the government is under mounting pressure to recommit to the principles of transparency and accountability that gave legitimacy to the 2018 revolution.

The Pashinyan administration offers lessons on how to capitalize on a window of opportunity to advance consequential anti-corruption gains, as well as insights on when the spark of the revolution fades into the reality of quotidian government reform.

Continue reading →

What the Next UK Government Likely to do About Corruption

Posted on by
2

If polls are to be believed, on July 4 the Labour Party will take control of the government of the (still!) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Professor Robert Barrington (Centre for the Study of Corruption) was one of the architects of the Cameron government’s Anti-Corruption Summit in 2016. Below he reviews a recent speech from Labour MP David Lammy, almost certain to be Foreign Secretary in a Labour government. Given the UK’s role in the international fight against corruption, Lammy’s remarks will be of interest to more than just UK voters.

Somewhat lost in the noise of the UK’s general election announcement was a major speech by Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy at the think-tank IPPR.  It was reported here in the Financial Times, but hardly anywhere else.  As Mr Lammy is likely to be the UK’s new Foreign Secretary on July 5th, anti-corruption experts should be paying close attention to what he said.  Moreover, this is the most significant speech made to date by a senior politician in the opposition party, and so gives the best clue as to what might happen should they win the election.  This analysis contains lengthy quotations, as the speech does not seem yet to be easily accessible.

Continue reading →

Guest Post: Watching Watch Wearers: More on Thailand’s Watchgate Case

Posted on by
3

GAB welcome back Craig R. Arndt, an American lawyer now living in Bangkok. Craig has advised a variety of clients on corruption-related matters and represented corruption victims in damage actions. Below he offers a coda to Government Leaders Should Watch Who Watches Them Wearing Their Pricey Watches

In 2018 the Thai public was mesmerized by a photo showing retired General and then Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan wearing a luxury watch. Activists soon found other photos of him sporting a variety of watches together worth $1.5 million. General Prawit was widely mocked for his explanation that they had been loaned to him by a wealthy now deceased friend and that he was not required to report them on his asset declaration form (here and here).

Thailand’s National Anticorruption Commission (NACC) did investigate the non-disclosure claim, it found nothing wrong. Prawit continued his political career, unfazed and unaffected by what had been short-lived damage to his reputation (here). He was the candidate for Prime Minister for the current ruling party in the recent election. Although that party split, his party still gained 40 seats in the face of a resounding defeat of the generals and their allies (here).

Although the NACC concluded that Prawit failure to report the watch collection did violated the asset disclosure law lot violated the law requriwas willing The agency, however, offered no justification for letting Prawit off the hook (here). Thailand’s increasingly assertive civil society was not ready to let the matter drop.

Political Activist Veera Somkwamkid asked the Administrative Court to order NACC to disclose its findings in the Prawit case. The first level administrative court agreed, and April 2023 the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) upheld the decision and ordered full disclosure of the NACC Prawit files (here).

The SAC’s decision in the Prawit case does not set a precedent under Thai law. The NACC can thus refuse to disclose its reasoning in future cases, meaning those seeking their disclosure will have to tread the path Veera took in Prawit’s. It may a be a slow and treacherous one, but the NACC and Thai officials are on notice it’s a path determined civil society activists are willing to take.

Prawit may still find it easy to find the time of day given his glitzy watch collection, but in Thailand time may be running short on politicians of his ilk

Gibraltar Government on Trial for Corruption

Posted on by
2

Today’s Guest Post is by Robert Barrington, Professor of Anti-Corruption Practice at the Centre for the Study of Corruption, University of Sussex (UK); and formerly the Chair of Transparency International’s International Council.

With a population of a mere 34,000 and a parliament of 17 elected members, Gibraltar seldom attracts the world’s attention, except in the periodic spats between Britain and Spain as to its territorial status.  One of Britain’s Overseas Territories, like the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands, it’s part of the remnants of the Empire which never became independent.  Like those other territories, Gibraltar has become a financial centre – particularly known for online gambling – and is officially ruled by a hands-off Governor on behalf of the British crown.

Small states have a very mixed record when it comes to corruption.  Some, like Singapore and Hong Kong (prior to the recent ‘Chinafication’), have in the past successfully led crackdowns on corruption, backed up by powerful and effective anti-corruption agencies.  But small states can all too easily be captured by vested interests and go in the opposite direction – see, for example, Wouter Veenendaal’s article on ‘How smallness fosters clientelism; a case study of Malta.’

The picture in Britain’s Overseas Territories is relatively obscure.  They are so small that they do not generally feature  on global indices of corruption. There is usually a non-existent, or at best government-friendly local media and civil society; independence – in the judiciary, police, or other pillars of the state – is hard to achieve when everyone knows everyone.  Ideal conditions for state capture.

Many of the Overseas Territories dance on the edges of the FATF greylist, periodically creeping on and off. Gibraltar was added to the list in June 2022 and removed in February 2024.  The British Virgin Islands, Turks & Caicos and Cayman Islands have all had corruption scandals at the heart of government, often related to dirty money.  In fact, it is thanks to those scandals and the subsequent attention they garner (via the international media, public enquiries, and occasionally prosecutions) that we have at least a partial picture of what is going on.

So what is happening in Gibraltar? 

Continue reading →

Guest Post: Model Open Government Partnership Commitments for Fighting Kleptocracy

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s guest post is from Jodi Vittori, Professor of Practice at Georgetown University:

This past January, I authored a report, co-sponsored by the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and the National Democratic Institute, entitled “Committing to Combat Kleptocracy: A Guide for Open Government Partnership Members.” The report explains how various kleptocrats and their “enablers” move illicit assets from the country where they were stolen to the locations where they will be stored and enjoyed. The report also discusses how kleptocracy undermines not only the countries where the assets were stolen, but also the transit or destination points for kleptocratic money, people, and other resources.  While it might seem like an infusion of money, assets, and rich people into a given country might be a benefit for that country (putting aside the moral issues), it turns out that these inflows have real drawbacks for the host state, contributing to governance backsliding, facilitating real estate manipulation and industrial asset stripping, exacerbating migration challenges, and undermining national security. The role of Russia’s kleptocracy in election interference in the West, as well as the corruption associated with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, have helped put the role kleptocratic inflows play in receiving states in the spotlight.

The OGP’s open government principles—to which all OGP member governments commit—are a set of norms that, if honored and implemented, will help countries fight back against inflows of kleptocratic assets. At the most basic level, the OGP stresses the importance of making relevant, usable, and timely information on governments available to citizens and civil society to hold their governments accountable. This helps ensure that public resources are managed transparently, fairly, and equitably. The report develops this further by outlining a series of model OGP commitments for consideration by governments and citizen activists, including the following: Continue reading →

The Fake News and Corruption Behind the Criminal Investigation of Transparency International

Posted on by
5

Transparency International and its Brazilian chapter are now the subject of a criminal investigation in Brazil. As GAB readers know (here), the investigation is part of Supreme Court Justice Dias Toffoli’s crusade to reverse the convictions handed down in Lava Jato, the landmark Brazilian corruption case. The aim is to ensure defendants escape all punishment in Brazil and are protected from prosecution in the dozen other Latin American and African countries where they paid bribes.

Today’s Guest Post by a Brazilian insider reveals just how groundless the investigation of TI is and Justice Toffoli’s direct conflict of interest in letting one of the Lava Jato defendants off the hook. The author explains that it starts, as the respected Brazilian journal Crusoé explains in the headline to its February 16 issue, with “A HISTORY OF FAKE NEWS AGAINST TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL: How the narrative was planted, leaked, refuted and reheated in the PGR [Federal Attorney General Office] to retaliate the anti-corruption NGO.”

Continue reading →

Does Congress Really Want to Relax Corruption Controls on U.S. Arms Sales?

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s Guest Post is by Colby Goodman, a Senior Researcher with Transparency International US and Defence and Security. His research focuses on corruption risks within the international arms trade and other forms of defense sector corruption. 

That corruption permeates the international arms trade is no surprise to readers of Transparency International reports (here), business executives (here), or investigative reporters (here, here, and here). What is a surprise is that the U.S. House of Representatives is considering weakening the measures the U.S. government has put in place over the past decades to prevent U.S. companies from becoming entangled in corrupt dealings.

This Tuesday, February 6, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will discuss a bill to significantly decrease the number of proposed U.S. arms sales that would require congressional review before proceeding. The bill would increase the dollar threshold that require  the Defense and State Departments to notify Congress of a planned sale. It follows a US defense industry lobbying campaign to speed up the process in delivering U.S. weapons and so make their purchase more commercially attractive. But at the cost of weakening key U.S. government efforts to curb corruption in U.S. arms sales.

To its credit, in early 2023 the Biden Administration  updated the government’s Conventional Arms Transfer policy to “ensure that arms transfers do not fuel corruption or undermine good governance, while incentivizing effective, transparent, and accountable security sector governance.”  This policy followed its Countering Corruption Strategy, where  the U.S. government pledged to start “reviewing and re-evaluating criteria for government-to-government [security] assistance, including around transparency and accountability.”  These actions recognized the significant harm to U.S. national security that comes from pervasive corruption in partner countries and the need to mitigate corruption risks within the U.S. defense industry.  

Detailed below are four key critical corruption checks that would be undermined by the proposed bill.

Continue reading →

Guest Post: How the Azerbaijani Government Corrupts Western Democracies with “Caviar Diplomacy”

Posted on by
2

Today’s guest post is from Aram Simonyan, a Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Scholar at the University of Sussex.

Artsakh, or Nagorno-Karabakh, is an autonomous region primarily populated by ethnic Armenians. (That the region is part of Azerbaijan rather than Armenia is due to a 1921 decision by the USSR central government.) In 2020 Azerbaijan, with outspoken support from Turkey, gained power over notable territory in Nagorno-Karabakh. Then, in December 2022, the Azerbaijani government closed the Lachin corridor (the only land route between Nagornon-Karabakh and Armenia), thereby cutting off 120,000 ethnic Christian Armenians in the contested enclave from the outside world—and from food, medicine, and other primary goods. And in September 2023 Azerbaijani military, with the apparent support of the Turkish president, forces swept into towns and villages, killing, shelling, and bombing civilians—evoking trauma of the Armenian Genocide among the population.

Yet the reaction from the West has been shockingly muted. It’s hard to ignore the striking contrast between the round-the-clock media coverage of the Gaza conflict and the scarcity of news on Nagorno-Karabakh even when Azerbaijan was bombing Armenian hospitals, schools and beheading people. Critics have also pointed out how European institutions and Western companies have continued to do business as usual with Azerbaijan, notwithstanding its aggression.

Part of the justification for this may be that Azerbaijan helps meet the EU’s need for natural gas. (In July 2022, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen referred to Aliyev as a “trustworthy partner” for gas supply to the EU, though since Azerbaijan imports gas from Russia, it’s not at all clear why the EU wanted to involve the Azerbaijani government in the supply chain.) But another reason is that Azerbaijan has made use of what critics have dubbed “caviar diplomacy”: the use of strategic bribery (direct and indirect) to corrupt and curry favor with Western governments and institutions. Continue reading →