Skip to sidebar Skip to main

Q34.

Do the Defence Ministry, Defence Minister, Chiefs of Defence, and Single Service Chiefs publicly commit, through, for example, speeches, media interviews, or political mandates, to anti-corruption and integrity measures?

34a. Chiefs/Ministers: Internal communications

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

34b. Chiefs/Ministers: Public commitment

Score

SCORE: 25/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

34c. Unit commanders and leaders

Score

SCORE: 0/100

Assessor Explanation

Assessor Sources

Compare scores by country

Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.

Relevant comparisons

Anti-corruption has been set as one of the main priorities for Albania’s European Union (EU) integration process. As a result, there is a broad anti-corruption discourse at political levels. As part of this discourse, there is a commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), as part of the overall inter-sectoral action as defined by the Inter-Sectoral Strategy against Corruption (ISSC) [1]. After the action plan for 2014-2017 expired in June 2017 [2], a renewed action plan on anti-corruption has been adopted in June 2018 for 2018-2020 [5]. Progress reports for January-December 2019 reflect on the progress achieved by the MOD [6].

However, there is a gap between the overall anti-corruption discourse and action. The MoD, does not have an integrity plan. New integrity plans were scheduled to be adopted in 2019 [3]. Another trend is the decline of the anti-corruption discourse by the MoD over the last two to three years and an increased flow of accusations of corruption in the defence sector by the opposition [4]. Despite the degree of implementation of the anti-corruption action plan as well as its impact, the MoD has been very active publicly on corruption-related issues in the defence sector.

Corruption appeared as a big issue during the first two years after the current government came to power (2013-2015). The review of MoD publications shows that corruption is mostly part of the political discourse, covered mainly by the minister of defence with little or no involvement of military commanders [1, 2, 3].

There is little communication on anti-corruption within the MoD and the armed forces. The review of the MoD bi-monthly magazine, “Revista Mbrojtja” and the weekly newspaper “Gazeta Ushtria” that are both marketed mainly to MoD and armed forces members, reveal a very limited number of articles where corruption is addressed during the period 2013-2018 [1, 2].

The review of the internal communication of the armed forces is based on the military magazine El-Djeich, which is published monthly by the armed forces. In the editions published between 2016 and 2018 (1), former President Bouteflika, who was also officially the Minister of Defence, called on the armed forces to face “corruption and drugs, which eat away the economy and security” in August 2018 (2). No other more concrete commitments to fight corruption were found.

Bouteflika’s August 2018 speech in which he called on Algerians to face “corruption and drugs, which eat away the economy and security” (1) was reported in the media (2). Statements by Deputy Defence Minister Salah related to the topic of corruption could only be found with regards to organized crime but not corruption. In May 2018, he welcomed the results that have been achieved in the fight against terrorism and organized crime (3). No explicit commitments on fighting corruption could be found by the President or the Vice-Defence Minister.

There is no evidence that commitments to anti-corruption have been made by senior officers of the Ministry of Defence or armed forces staff members. No information could be found in the official journal El-Djeich (1) or local news.

There are however statements from other officials. For example, the Director-General of the Police said that one has to be “clean” to be able to fight corruption effectively. The statement came in the wake of a seizure of 700kg of cocaine in May 2018 (2). The Minister of Justice also emphasized that no one is above the law and that corruption cases will be handled with rigour and confidence. He also said that the fight against corruption is pursued under the directives and guidelines of the President of the Republic (3).

Since President Lourenço took office, there has been more emphasis in public speeches by top officials of the armed forces, as well as the Minister of Defence and others to highlight the fight against corruption in the defence sector as a priority (1), (2), (3). For example, in July 2018, Angop reported that “The Chief of Staff of the FAA, António Egídio de Sousa Santos “Discipline”, announced in the city of Lobito, among other measures, the fight against corruption, impunity and nepotism within the Armed Forces, taking into account the context that the country goes through” (1).In March 2018, Angop reported that “Hélder Pinto, a judge from the court of the Military Region Center said, Corruption is an evil that affects the defence and national security organs, as it can negatively influence their efficiency and operationality” (3).
However, there is no public information on internal strategic communications on fighting corruption nor is there evidence of the speeches translating into effective measures to conduct reforms.

While a commitment to fight corruption in the military is publicly stated (see Q34A), little is said about specific integrity measures and management of risk (1), (2), (3), (4).

Since President Lourenço took office, there has been more emphasis in public speeches by top officials of the armed forces, as well as the Minister of Defence and others to highlight the fight against corruption in the defence sector as a priority (1), (2), (3). For example, in July 2018, Angop reported that “The Chief of Staff of the FAA, António Egídio de Sousa Santos “Discipline”, announced in the city of Lobito, among other measures, the fight against corruption, impunity and nepotism within the Armed Forces, taking into account the context that the country goes through” (1). In March 2018, Angop reported that “Hélder Pinto, a judge from the court of the Military Region Center said, Corruption is an evil that affects the defence and national security organs, as it can negatively influence their efficiency and operationality” (3). However, there is no public information on internal strategic communications on fighting corruption nor is there evidence of the speeches translating into effective measures to conduct reforms.

There is no evidence of statements by unit commanders and leaders, as internal defence service publications cannot be accessed.

Since President Lourenço took office, there has been more emphasis in public speeches by top officials of the armed forces, as well as the Minister of Defence and others to highlight the fight against corruption in the defence sector as a priority (1), (2), (3). For example, in July 2018, Angop reported that “The Chief of Staff of the FAA, António Egídio de Sousa Santos “Discipline”, announced in the city of Lobito, among other measures, the fight against corruption, impunity and nepotism within the Armed Forces, taking into account the context that the country goes through” (1). In March 2018, Angop reported that “Hélder Pinto, a judge from the court of the Military Region Center said, Corruption is an evil that affects the defence and national security organs, as it can negatively influence their efficiency and operationality” (3).

However, there is no public information on internal strategic communications on fighting corruption nor is there evidence of the speeches translating into effective measures to conduct reforms.

There is an alignment at the Ministry of Defence level with national policy and with the current regulatory framework regarding active transparency and the anti-corruption plan. However, the Minister and the Chiefs of the Forces do not appear in the “News” section, nor in speeches communicating anti-corruption measures. At the ministerial level of the General Directorate of Integrity, Transparency, and Institutional Strengthening, there is a specific function for the development and implementation of public policies that strengthen public integrity and ethics, accountability, open government, access to information, transparency, and prevention of corruption, in the field of defence specifically. This complies with government policy and the law of access to public information. Beyond that, from the survey of the news published on the Ministry’s website, there is no evidence of the authorities directing the issuance communications regarding anti-corruption measures in the jurisdiction. [1] Also in the available interviews conducted by different media with the Minister of Defence, there is no mention of anti-corruption measures in the jurisdiction. [2] [3]

There are specific communications about transparency in the defence jurisdiction, but only in the face of specific situations and not as a communication policy that shows public commitment in the fight against corruption. The Ministry is undergoing a process of reform and adaptation to the regulations on transparency. [1] In this sense, no explicit commitment by the authorities (Chiefs and Minister) regarding the fight against corruption is observed in the media, either in the institution or as part of the ordinary discourse. [2] It is worth mentioning that the current Minister is in judicial process due to irregularities in an agreement to pay debts of a company to the State. [3] [4]

The integrity and anti-corruption measures of the jurisdiction are not explicitly observed from the information available on the official websites of the Ministry of Defence, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army, Navy, and Air Force. However, especially in the Forces, there is a commitment around values, ethics, and discipline. [1] It is worth mentioning that, specifically with regard to the Armed Forces and the defence jurisdiction in general, in the 2018 Latinobarometer Report, Argentina received a high degree of confidence, with the defence jurisdiction receiving a rating of 48%, behind only the Church. [2] [3] [4]

The Centre of Human Rights and Integrity was established in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to address human rights and integrity-related issues in the armed forces. The centre aims at strengthening human rights and integrity in different subdivisions of the armed forces of MoD, control over responsibilities in the area of human rights and integrity, develop recommendations on new governance methodology based on the system of values of human rights and integrity, etc [1]. As Interviewee 7 said, “The establishment of the Centre is unique considering the complicated nature of the relationships in the region” [2]. There were numerous publications about corruption crimes in the armed forces over the years, especially about the abuse of material resources, but the vast majority of them remained intact. Only after the revolution, the conversation about corruption has increased. Minister of Defence Tonoyan stated that there are corruption risks in the armed forces [3]. On March 2019, Deputy Prime Minister Tigran Avinyan delivered a lecture on the “Struggle Against Corruption, Competitive, Participatory and Inclusive Economy” within the framework of the operational meeting with the Armenian Armed Forces’ leadership. He briefed the participants about the main directions, anti-corruption mechanisms and key principles of the anti-corruption policy adopted by Armenia within the framework of their effective implementation [4].

Though permanently in focus, the issue of corruption in the defence sector has become even more urgent after the ‘April War’ in 2016. The Defence Minister Vigen Sargsyan stressed the importance of combating corruption in the defence sector at a press conference on November 16, 2016. In particular, he said that fight against corruption is effective when you introduce a system that eliminates chances of corruption enticement. Nobody succeeded to eliminate corruption to zero in the world but to make it an exception rather than a pattern is a must [1].
In a range of public speeches, press conferences, and other occasions, the issue of combating corruption is stressed by the then minister [2, 3, 4, 5] and newly appointed minister of defence and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces [6, 7]. In terms of communicating the message, all those authorized to speak publicly on the issue of corruption are consistent.

No publicly available evidence was found with the statement of commitment by the unit commanders or other leaders in the armed forces [1]. However, we can find some information about the importance of the issue within the MoD. For instance, on March 26 2019, tests were conducted at the MoD within the framework of the operational meeting with the leadership of the armed forces. Through the questionnaires and direct contact, the knowledge of the participants of the operative gathering about the effects of constitutional changes, the civilian control, the fight against corruption and the military management system was checked up [2].

Through the Defence Values, value statements of the various services, and programs, it is clear that Defence takes integrity as a value seriously; however, specific mentions of (anti-)corruption hardly exist and internal statements by senior Defence officials on these issues appear few and far between. The Defence Values [1] and value statements of all the services [2, 3, 4] all mention integrity as a core value or key component of a core value. Internal communications, such as through the Defence service’s magazines and speeches directed at an internal audience, also demonstrate occasional statements supporting both integrity as a value as well as specific integrity measures. The Army News Paper reported that, during an address to the Defence Audit and Fraud Control Division-hosted Fraud and Anti-Corruption Congress in 2017, the Defence Secretary Brendan Sergeant and Acting Chief of Defence Force Ray Griggs “delivered strong ‘tone from the top’ messages” on the themes of the Congress (the speeches were not made public) [5]. After a review process into Defence Force culture initiated after public accusations were made of rampant sexual misconduct, the Pathway to Change program was launched in 2012, focused on increased integrity and responsibility among personnel [6]. The internal Navy publication Navy News reported that the Chief of Defence Force and “Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty issued a joint statement to all Defence members” in November 2017, building on the first 5 years of the program and announcing another 5-year initiative [7]. Chief of Army Rick Burr wrote a statement in support of the Good Soldiering initiative, aiming for “cultural optimisation,” including encouraging integrity and good values among Army personnel, which was published in internal Army publication Army News [8]. At the Chief of Navy Change of Command Ceremony, directed mainly at an internal Defence and Navy audience, the incoming Chief of Navy reiterated his commitment to the Navy Values, including integrity [9]. However, support specifically for anti-corruption does not appear to have featured in internal communications, and these internal communications do not appear to be very frequent and often appeal to abstract values without expanding on measures. There are almost certainly other, non-public internal communications which expand on Defence’s commitment to promoting integrity and anti-corruption.

Senior Department of Defence (DoD) officials readily speak of values and integrity in speeches and statements, but are more cagey and secretive about specific measures or speaking about specific incidents. DoD officials make fairly superficial appeals to values and integrity in public forums. Former Vice Chief of Defence Force Ray Griggs spoke of the “values, behaviours and traditions of the original ANZACs [Australian and New Zealand veterans on World War I]” and how they inform contemporary Defence values in a speech marking an anniversary of Australia’s involvement in World War I [1]. Former Navy Chief Tim Barrett devoted one 2016 speech to the topic “The role Navy plays in nation building,” which focused heavily on Navy values, though this was mainly referring to democratic values and less to integrity and culture [2]. However, senior DoD officials seem to be reticent about major integrity and corruption issues alleged and revealed publicly. In response to media reports on a leaked internal DoD investigation in which serious misconduct by Australian Special Forces soldiers was alleged by fellow soldiers [3], the Chief of Defence Force released a terse statement acknowledging that allegations had “arisen from within our own community,” and that he had “full confidence in the men and women of the ADF” [4]. Previous investigative reporting had alleged serious misconduct by Special Forces in Afghanistan, perhaps rising to the level of war crimes [5], but no public response or acknowledgement of the accusations was made by senior DoD officials. With other integrity issues such as drug use in the ranks, the Australian Defence Force keeps key information confidential, unlike allies like the U.S. and U.K. [6], and senior officials do not speak publicly about drug and alcohol abuse issues, though the DoD does occasionally release unsigned statements [6].

Though the content of speeches and statements from unit leaders and commanders below the senior ranks of the Department of Defence are generally not publicly available, there appear to be only occasional, superficial references to values and conduct. Before he was Chief of Army, Lt Gen Rick Burr encouraged graduating members of the Royal Military College to “Hold yourself to your own high standards. Lead with purpose, with integrity and humility” [1]. The Country Assessor could not find more examples after an extensive search on the Department of Defence website and Defence publications [2]. Unit commanders are expected to – and interviewees say they do [3, 4] – display ethical leadership and push initiatives that have to do with cultural change, such as the Army’s Good Soldiering program [5].

There is not any openly stated and effectively implemented anti-corruption plan for defence sector in Azerbaijan. Because of that, it seems there is no official commitment to integrity and anti-corruption in the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Officially Baku still has not joined NATO’s program, Building Integrity, which is intended to strengthen countries against corruption, no reason has been given (1).
According to the National Security Concept (Article 4.3.1), the government will continue its consistent efforts on the following issues:

Democratic and civilian control over all security structures,
their transparency, effective fight against corruption, increasing the responsibility of high-ranking officials inform the public about the activities of high-ranking officials in the fields of responsibility of MPs, mass media (2).

Parliament adopted the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Combating Corruption in 2004 (3), and there is a National Strategy on Increasing Transparency and Combating Corruption which was adopted in 2007 (4). After a change in the leadership of the MoD in 2013, officials from MoD have begun to declare that they will fight corruption in the army (5). Perhaps, the Anti-Corruption Group has been formed in the MoD, but this group is not strong enough and is under the strong influence of the leadership. Officials from the MoD told this reviewer that the armed forces were implementing the National Action Plan on combating corruption (2012-2015) (6). Based on this, an internal anti-corruption strategy was subsequently developed at the ministry. But there is a little commitment to this issue among MoD leadership, and the internal strategy is superficial. There is a lack of political will when it comes to genuine support for anti-corruption and integrity measures.

There were some statements, opinion and interviews from officials defence and security structures about anti-corruption measures in the last years. However, according to experts, these statements show that there is no serious anti-corruption strategy in the MoD and other structures.
After the change in the leadership of the MoD in 2013, the new minister Zakir Hasanov announced that he would fight corruption in the army (1). In August 2015, he said, “All officers involved in corruption, regardless of rank or position, will be held accountable before the law. They have no place in the army. This is the most important task our President has set before us” (5).
In 2018, Zakir Hasanov also talked about the Chamber of Accounts review of the MoD, when he answered the question on army control mechanisms at a press conference. He said the control over the army is very strong. “Sometimes such opinions are said why the Chamber of Accounts does not check the Ministry of Defence? When the Chamber of Accounts worked for a month in some institutions, they worked for us five months. There was no violation of law.” The minister noted that the people of Azerbaijan are the biggest public control, “Everyone sees this in” Open Doors “, and we work closely with other government agencies. The media are taking part in these events” (2).
Further, the military prosecutor Khanlar Veliyev spoke about fighting against corruption in the defence and security sector. According to him, the fight against corruption in the army is carried out on the following documents (3):
– The law “On Combating Corruption”
– “National Action Plan on Combating Corruption in 2012-2015” approved by President Ilham Aliyev’s Order dated September 5, 2012,
– Tasks set forth at the meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers, chaired by the head of state on 10 January 2015.
According to the Military Prosecutor in 2017, 123 criminal cases of corruption and bribery about 146 persons were completed and sent to relevant military courts (4).

There are few statements of commitment by officials from MoD and other military structures. According to Vagif Dargahli (1), spokesman of the MoD, some of the tasks in the National Action Plan on Combating Corruption are under the authority of the MoD. “A number of measures have been implemented in the Ministry of Defence in connection with the implementation of the relevant paragraph of the Presidential Decree On the approval of the National Action Plan for the Prevention of Corruption in 2012-2015. This decree and the National Action Plan approved by it have been proclaimed to all staff by the relevant order of the defence minister. Following the order, relevant officials of the MoD were instructed to prepare proposals on the implementation of the Plans, and the proposals were summarized and a separate Action Plan for the National Action Plan was prepared. As part of the action plan is within the competence of the MoD, executive and supervisory bodies, persons, as well as the execution period have been defined. For the first time in the implementation of the “National Action Plan for the Prevention of Corruption for 2012-2015,” legal awareness-raising events, conversations, lessons, and anonymous opinion polls are being organized with the staff. To carry out the activities envisaged in the Action Plan, MoD officials are in military units and at the same time, the relevant military commissions, inspections, revisions work in military units.
According to the Dargahli, regularly by the leadership of the MoD:
– the direct reception of citizens is organized,
– corruption applications and complaints are considered,
– the electronic reception and official response of appeals is provided,
– The Defence Ministry has a “Trust line” and “Trust Mail” in military units,
– mechanisms for implementing civil service recruiting based on competition and transparency are improved,
– Implementation of the defence minister’s order regarding the implementation of the Action Plan is under control and other measures are being taken.
– In January of each year, a report on the measures taken during the past year and their outcomes is being prepared, which is submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers and the Anti-Corruption Commission.
– The inspections carried out in the military units are carried out by the relevant commissions established under the order signed by the defence minister.
– In cases of various violations of the law revealed as a result of inspections, immediate action is taken, acts are drawn up, guilty persons are subjected to material, administrative, disciplinary and criminal liability, and damage to the state is restored.
– Officials and relevant government agencies are informed about each incident.
According to Arzu Rahimov, Head of the State Service for Mobilization and Conscription, the Action Plan against Corruption was prepared and approved by the Service in connection with the implementation of the “National Action Plan for 2012-2015 on Combating Corruption,” implementation of the proposed measures was ensured (2).
Colonel of Justice, Colonel Rauf Kishiyev, said in his interview to the “Army of Azerbaijan” (3) that according to statistical data, the total crime rate in the armed forces is decreasing. Many factors have an impact on reducing the number of crimes. Enhancement of the logistical support of our army, improvement of the social status of servicemen on the rising line, awareness-raising campaigns of commanders and commanders, preventive measures for prevention of crimes and incidents, education of the personnel in the spirit of respect for the law, the improper application of the principle of impunity, the increasing legal culture of servicemen and other factors contribute to the reduction of crime. All these activities are carried out in unity and it is undeniable that they play a big role in the work of investigative bodies.”

According to interviewees, corruption is not seen as a strategic issue in the army or the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and, therefore, there are no internal communications from high-ranking personnel to units, brigades or even civil departments [1, 2, 3].

There have been no speeches in the last few years concerning corruption from the chief of the army or the minister of defence [1, 2]. Another source indicates that the king mentioned this once or twice in his speeches during the last five years [3, 4].

There are no statements concerning corruption by senior staff, commanders, or the minister [1, 2, 3]. However, there are some speeches and talks by senior officials (commanders of the army) that commit to anti-corruption efforts [4].

The Ministry of Defence is mandated to implement the Government’s National Integrity Strategy [1]. As directed by the Cabinet Division [2], the MoD has set up an Ethics Committee which organises meetings on a quarterly basis. The Senior Secretary of the Ministry, who chairs the meetings, reminds officials from all organisations under the MoD, such as the Army, Navy and Air Force, to work on defence-specific issues with integrity. The MoD also apprises the Cabinet Division of its NIS activities through quarterly reports [3], and has introduced integrity awards. The number for the Anti-Corruption Commission hotline is also provided on its website.

Bangladesh’s Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of Defence, has publicly reiterated her government’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy on corruption several times [1], stating that action will continue to be taken against corruption regardless of who is involved in it. She also urged officials of the National Security Intelligence, headed by a Major General, to perform their duties with honesty and integrity [2]. The Chief of Army Staff has also spoken publicly against corruption on a few occasions and, in one instance, hailed the government’s ongoing anti-corruption drive [3]. These public commitments, however, did not contain any details of anti-corruption measures for the defence sector. Neither the Navy nor the Air Chief are reported to have spoken publicly against corruption issues.

Unit commanders and leaders address corruption and integrity issues on an irregular basis, during monthly or quarterly meetings. This usually happens when a corruption scandal involving politicians and businesspeople dominates media reports. In these cases, Section 42 of the Army Act of 1952 [1] is reiterated to warn troops that accepting ‘illegal gratification’ would result in a prison sentence of up to 5 years. In one rare case, a serving officer wrote a journal article [2] listing money laundering as one of the non-traditional security threats facing the country.

Personnel of Belgian Defence have to abide by a deontological code [1]. Any military staff member working directly or indirectly in procurement has to sign a formal declaration that she or he has read and understood the code [2]. Moreover, these individuals have to attend at least one two-hour training session on deontology and integrity [3]. The commitment of senior management to integrity is repeated numerous times.

The Chief of Defence and Ministers do not actively include anti-corruption issues in their standard talking points [1]. This is mainly due to the fact that, within Belgium, corruption is a non-issue [2, 3].

Personnel of Belgian Defence have to abide by a deontological code [1]. Integrity is a value stressed frequently during symbolic moments, especially in the formation phase of the military. Corruption is rarely referenced at unit parades, graduation ceremonies or in writing.

However, any military staff working directly or indirectly in procurement have to sign a formal declaration that they have read and understood the code [2]. Moreover, these individuals have to attend at least one two-hour training session on deontology and integrity [3]. The commitment of senior management to integrity is repeated numerous times.

The policy of building integrity, decreasing the risk and fighting the corruption within the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina (AFBiH) defines that the Ministry provides guidelines and approves training in the field of integrity building, prevention and decreasing of risk and fighting corruption in the AFBiH. The ministry has defined procedures for prevention of corruption (brought ethic code of conduct, web page for reporting corruption, etc.). Apart from that, the MoD is the first state institution that established the Ethic line on its web page as the tool for reporting of possible irregularities within the MoD and the AFBiH, showing that zero-tolerance for corruption became the way of thinking and acting in the ministry [1, 2].

The fight against corruption is the regular topic in printed publications issued by the Office for Public Relations (MoD and Armed Forces Newsletter, Our Army), as well as in the TV series “Our Strength“ that is broadcasted through electronic media in the country, on the website and Facebook page of the MoD [1].

Commitment by the MoD and AFBiH is seen in the latest report to the Auditing Office of BiH Institutions for 2017, No: 01/02/03-08-16-1-702/187, stating the following, “ [the] fight against fraud and corruption is very important for the ministry due to the very nature of its activities and complexity of the ministry [1].
Members of the ministry participate in seminars and workshops in the country and abroad, related to integrity building and fight against corruption, and some attend seminars organized by NATO and EUFOR[2]. In 2017, following the Strategy of Fight against Corruption 2015-2019 of BiH Council of Ministers and Action Plan for Implementation of the Strategy, the MoD brought the Report on Implementation of Action Plan (2015-2019) of Strategy for Fight against Corruption [2].
News regarding integrity building, the role of the Inspectorate and Parliamentary Military Commissioner, as well as various events related to the realization of the Strategy and Action Plan for Fight against Corruption, is given through public announcements, web and Facebook pages of the MoD. Also, the Law on Free Access to Information is strictly observed and information of public importance are given upon requests, as well as media requests that are answered promptly and transparently, contributing to integrity building and fight against corruption [2].
The MoD participates in a joint project with CIDS that includes the following areas:
– strengthening of the personnel management system
– strengthening of the public procurement system
– strengthening of integrity within BiH MoD and BiH AF.
One of the events dedicated to the strengthening of integrity, prevention and fight against corruption was realized in Konjic on August 30-31, 2018 [3, 4].
The MoD is also responsive to activities that strengthen integrity in different areas and take part in projects initiated by civil society [5].
Public commitment to fighting corruption is also presented through interviews in the media [6, 7].

Readiness and commitment to apply measures in the fight against corruption are also visible in regular attendance and participation of the highest officials of the MoD and AFBiH in numerous meetings and seminars dedicated to anti-corruption measures and integrity building, in which interactive communication is established, as well as communication with media and public. Through appearances in media, it is emphasized that the MoD and AFBiH resolutely contribute to the building of integrity and oppose all that jeopardize prosperity of the MoD and AFBiH, and society as a whole [1].

The Chief of Joint Staff of the AFBiH, appointed in 2018, gave his support to the fight against corruption and that the Action plan can give the desired results only if all members of the AFBiH, but also the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, are involved in the fight against corruption. He also addressed the members of the AFBiH that the best way to fight corruption is to carry out their tasks and obligations professionally and to comply with legal provisions consistently [2].

Internal communications from the Ministers or other Senior Defence Officers are not published. It is not clear whether such communications are meted out or not. There is some evidence that the BDF headquarters have posters and other materials with anti-corruption messages, and that messages are disseminated in other internal methods [1], but in the absence of any public information on internal communications, it is very difficult to get an accurate picture [2,3]. In July 2020, the BDF commander published a circular, which included details on efforts to combat corruption, money laundering and the acquisition of property from the proceeds of crime.[4].

There are public announcements in the fight against corruption on various platforms [1]. For example, the former Minister of Defence, Justice and Security was quoted saying “The Minister of Defence, Justice and Security, Mr Shaw Kgati, has cautioned his staff to guard against corrupt practices and other criminal activities and live by the values enshrined in the public service charter as they implement their projects and programmes” [2]. “As a ministry, our anti-corruption policy, which should be a matter of priority, should be cascaded to all aspects of the ministry,” he said [2]. The frequency of these public statements is very rare. As explained earlier, this could be attributed to the fact that corruption and integrity do not occupy much space within the discourse of BDF.

Unit Commanders are not on record with regards to their commitment to uphold and promote anti-corruption measures as well as integrity within the defence procurement system. Most of the statements on corruption on behalf of the Botswana Defence Forces are made by the Minister of Defence, Justice and Security [1]. Other Senior Officers in the military rarely make public statements, not as a matter of prohibition, but they do not interact with the public that often. Unit Commanders and Leaders do not engage with the public often [2]. It follows that even on public statements relating to corruption, transparency, integrity and accountability. This can be attributed to the military reporting structures of the BDF [2].

Internal communications regarding anti-corruption measures are superficial and infrequent; however, the military bureaucracy is well trained to respond to the Court of Auditors’ (TCU) external control mechanisms, which include many integrity measures [1, 2]. Defence institutions have been reactively adhering to integrity measures defined by the federal government, such as the Integrity Plans of the Federal Government [3]. Nevertheless, when Admiral Othon Luiz Pinheiro da Silva, responsible for the Navy Nuclear Programme, was arrested in the Car Wash Operation and accused of corruption, there was an internal communication issued by the Navy Commander reinforcing the Navy’s commitment to integrity and transparency. This, was not a public declaration but circulated internally [4, 5].

Historically, defence ministers do not engage the agenda of anti-corruption in their official discourses. The assessor searched for the word corruption in the official discourses of the three last defence ministers and found no mention to the subject [1]. However, the previous commander of the Brazilian Army, General Eduardo Villas Boas, made several public declarations of their commitment to an anti-corruption agenda. This was during the electoral campaign in 2018 and this was seen as a sort of indirect support to the candidate who had an anti-corruption flag in his campaign (who is today the president) [2, 3]. The former Navy Commander, Admiral Leal Ferreira, declared publicly, for an audience of military members and civilians in November 2019, the commitment of the Navy with integrity and anti-corruption practices. Chiefs and the minister are constantly reinforcing the fact that armed forces are acknowledged by the population as truthful institutions, and how they are not involved in corruption cases, or when involved that they legally prosecute the cases, as well as reinforcing values such integrity and honesty [4, 5, 6, 7, 8].

Question 24B presents a series of examples of commitments to anti-corruption made by unit commanders and leaders. As for the military officials and civilians working in military institutions interviewed, they contend that internal reunions often mention the military values of integrity and legality [1, 2].

Burkina Faso’s armed forces do not make public speeches without prior authorization from the hierarchy. Defence ministers, chief of defences, and single service chiefs rarely make public speeches. There is no evidence that internal communications relating to corruption are being addressed, except on topics like integrity, even though corruption is widespread among public officials (3). According to UNODC 2017, “From 22 to 23 March 2017, a national workshop on “Police, Gendarmerie and Customs: integrity and combating corruption” was organized in Ouagadougou, in cooperation with the High Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption…This will allow for the development of more realistic and pertinent strategies” (1). According to GAN 2016, “Corruption is pervasive in all sectors of the economy and government… Foreign donors have pushed the government to pass new anti-corruption legislation in 2015″ (2). Although corruption is criminalized under the Penal Code, however, weak enforcement of these laws, coupled with poor access to information, a culture of impunity, weak institutions, have made the fight against corruption all the more difficult…The police and gendarmerie are perceived to be among the most corrupt institutions in Burkina Faso. Investigations of corrupt practices and the abuse of the police are carried out by the gendarmerie, but results of these investigations are not always made public….. however, only between 1-15% of households report having paid a bribe to the police” (2), (4), (6).

According to the DoS (2017), “use of excessive force, corruption, a climate of impunity, and lack of training contributed to police ineffectiveness… The government announced investigations in progress, but as of September 20, none had led to prosecution.inadequate resources also impeded police effectiveness…NGOs reported pervasive corruption in… the gendarmerie, national police, municipal police. The local NGO Anticorruption National Network (REN-LAC) categorized the municipal police as the most corrupt government sector. They reported a lack of political will to fight corruption, stating the government rarely imposed sanctions against prominent government figures (3). According to BTI 2016, “Isolated cases of corruption are prosecuted, but often without consequence…Though the law provides criminal penalties for official corruption, the government did not implement it effectively. There are few reliable public sources of information about corruption, and the media are often left to publish rumors and accusations. Few government agencies provide customer-friendly services (for example on web sites), which seriously compromises citizens’ ability to obtain information about government operations, including the proposed national budget” (5). The oversight mechanisms are not also able to nurture a tradition of internal communication on corruption or have the military to point out corruption or integrity in the public speeches or on the media. The Parliament, the Higher Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption, and the Cour of Accounts do not exercise their constitutional rights of control over the armed forces (5).

There is little evidence of commitment from chiefs and ministers with regards to anti-corruption within the military and security sectors. There is no evidence to show that anti-corruption is part of public talking points for chiefs and ministers, with explicit reference to corruption and management of corruption risks through interviews with journalists and CSOs, and statements at events and conferences. According to GAN 2016, “Corruption is pervasive in all sectors of the economy and government… Foreign donors have pushed the government to pass new anti-corruption legislation in 2015″ (2). Although corruption is criminalized under the Penal Code, however, weak enforcement of these laws, coupled with poor access to information, a culture of impunity, weak institutions, have made the fight against corruption all the more difficult…The police and gendarmerie are perceived to be among the most corrupt institutions in Burkina Faso. Investigations of corrupt practices and the abuse of the police are carried out by the gendarmerie, but results of these investigations are not always made public….. however, only between 1-15% of households report having paid a bribe to the police” (2)

According to the DoS (2017), “use of excessive force, corruption, a climate of impunity, and lack of training contributed to police ineffectiveness… The government announced investigations in progress, but as of September 20, none had led to prosecution.inadequate resources also impeded police effectiveness…NGOs reported pervasive corruption in… the gendarmerie, national police, municipal police. The local NGO Anticorruption National Network (REN-LAC) categorized the municipal police as the most corrupt government sector. They reported a lack of political will to fight corruption, stating the government rarely imposed sanctions against prominent government figures (3). However, the military disciplinary code focuses on integrity and is among the core shared values in the armed forces (5), (6), (7). Integrity is taught at military training centres. One key reasons for being fired in the defence sector remains offences committed in violation of military doctrine. Burkina Faso’s armed forces have been strict on this matter as they consider discipline to be the strength of the armed forces. Training in communication, integrity and corruption mostly takes places at professional workshops (1). For most personnel, integrity is something embedded from when they signed up to serve in the armed forces and they fear breaking military discipline (4). However, at the 2018 Council of Administration of the Ministry of Defence, the speech focused on ethics and integrity (1), (8). According to UNODC 2017, “from 22 to 23 March 2017, a national workshop on “Police, Gendarmerie and Customs: integrity and combating corruption” was organized in Ouagadougou, in cooperation with the High Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption… This will allow for the development of more realistic and pertinent strategies” (1).

There is little evidence of commitment from unit commanders and leaders with regards to anti-corruption within the military and security sectors. There is no evidence to show that anti-corruption is part of public talking points for chiefs and ministers, with explicit reference to corruption and management of corruption risks through interviews with journalists and CSOs, and statements at events and conferences. According to GAN 2016, “Corruption is pervasive in all sectors of the economy and government… Foreign donors have pushed the government to pass new anti-corruption legislation in 2015″ (2). Although corruption is criminalized under the Penal Code, however, weak enforcement of these laws, coupled with poor access to information, a culture of impunity, weak institutions, have made the fight against corruption all the more difficult…The police and gendarmerie are perceived to be among the most corrupt institutions in Burkina Faso. Investigations of corrupt practices and the abuse of the police are carried out by the gendarmerie, but results of these investigations are not always made public….. however, only between 1-15% of households report having paid a bribe to the police” (2)

According to the DoS (2017), “use of excessive force, corruption, a climate of impunity, and lack of training contributed to police ineffectiveness… The government announced investigations in progress, but as of September 20, none had led to prosecution.inadequate resources also impeded police effectiveness…NGOs reported pervasive corruption in… the gendarmerie, national police, municipal police. The local NGO Anticorruption National Network (REN-LAC) categorized the municipal police as the most corrupt government sector. They reported a lack of political will to fight corruption, stating the government rarely imposed sanctions against prominent government figures (3). The military disciplinary code focuses on integrity and is among the core shared values in the armed forces (5), (6), (7). Integrity is taught at military training centres. One key reasons for being fired in the defence sector remains offences committed in violation of military doctrine. Burkina Faso’s armed forces have been strict on this matter as they consider discipline to be the strength of the armed forces. Training in communication, integrity and corruption mostly takes places at professional workshops (1). For most personnel, integrity is something embedded from when they signed up to serve in the armed forces and they fear breaking military discipline (4). However, at the 2018 Council of Administration of the Ministry of Defence, the speech focused on ethics and integrity (1), (8). According to UNODC 2017, “from 22 to 23 March 2017, a national workshop on “Police, Gendarmerie and Customs: integrity and combating corruption” was organized in Ouagadougou, in cooperation with the High Authority for State Control and Anti-Corruption… This will allow for the development of more realistic and pertinent strategies” (1).

There is no evidence of any internal communications from senior members of the defence and security establishment. Due to the lack of transparency and accountability regarding issues of defence and security in Cameroon (Constitution, Article 35) [4], any internal communications, if they do exist, would not likely be made public. In addition, the lack of known proactive measures to fight corruption within the defence and security establishments, the prevalence of corruption across all aspects of Cameroonian society [1] [2], and the lack of transparency and accountability regarding wrongdoing and corruption by members of the security forces [3], suggest that there is unlikely to be an internal commitment to integrity and anti-corruption by the Defence Minister, Chief of Defence, Single Service Chiefs or the ministry as an institution.

The Minister of Defence has made several pronouncements on cases relating to corruption within the defence systems. Corrupt military officers have been disciplined and some of the sanctions broadcast on the National Radio and Television station. The Director of Communication of the Ministry of Defence has also made pronouncements concerning corrupt security officers. [1] Addressing military officers in 2015, the former Minister of Defence Edgard Alain Mebe Ngo’o stated that military officers who had embezzled the allowances of military personnel assigned to fight Boko Haram would be tried for embezzlement: “The Defence Minister insisted on good governance to guide the actions of soldiers on the field to enable them effectively to carry out war operations. The military leaders on the war front should lead by example: ‘I state clearly that depriving troops and soldiers of their rights in times of war is an act of treason that will lead the perpetrators to be judged in military courts,’ Mebe Ngo’o said” [2]. As noted in 33B, Mebe Ngo’o has been charged with allegations of corruption and embezzlement himself and so these communications should be taken as superficial.

There is no evidence of senior military officers denouncing corruption in the military and Ministry of Defence openly. The former Minister of Defence did in 2015 denounce corruption in relation to security officers embezzling the allowances of military personnel assigned to fight Boko Haram who would be tried for embezzlement (Cameroun Web, 2015) [1], but no senior military officers denounced such acts.

The Department of National Defence (DND) Ombudsman resigned after a lengthy conflict with ministerial staff over issues ranging from allegations of misuse of funds, mismanagement, and resistance to reforms in light of Auditor General criticisms. [1] The current minister has been accused of lying about his role in certain defence operations, and of failing to recuse himself from decisions in which he had a conflict of interest (although not a financial interest). He has acknowledged and apologised for the former. [2] While the Code of Ethics and Values mandates integrity in all areas, and addresses conflict of interest, it does not explicitly address corruption. [3] The Chief of Defence Staff does discuss integrity in speeches, for instance at a military graduation ceremony. [4]

Aside from the Code of Ethics and Values, [1] there are few official documents or statements on integrity or anti-corruption. [2] While not directly related to financial corruption, the Norman Court Case did cost a significant amount of public funds to pursue [3] and weakened the public commitment to integrity overall. Statements from the Minister of National Defence are noticable absent on issues of corruption; however the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Development issued a joint statement on ‘International Anti-Corruption Day’ that is more analogous to a press statement. [4]

There is some mention of integrity in the house journal of the CAF. [1] [2] Integrity is routinely mentioned at change of command ceremonies and graduations. (3,4) There is little discussion of measures or programmes to address it, except occasionally as an exercise in ethical decision making. [2] Additionally, the Air Force has a required one week course for incoming Squadron Commanding Officers and their Chief Warrant Officers. Much of the week deals with integrity, governance, leadership, support structures of staff with problems, and proper management of resources. The examples used in the question could be balanced with unit commanders and leader internal communications. The DND and the CAF have a code of ethics [5] and the Office of the Chief Military judge has a Policy on Access to Documents and Information – Courts Martial and other Judicial Hearings, [6] which demonstrates a proactive measure to demonstrate integrity of the military justice system.

After corruption scandals that emerged in 2015 in the army, communications in the Ministry of National Defence (MDN) have exhibited an emergent emphasis on probity and transparency in the defence sector. The minister of national defence has openly condemned corruption in speeches and acts [1]. The description of measures to guarantee probity and transparency covered a significant portion of the minister’s annual speech for the inauguration of the military academic year [2]. In a recent address to members of the armed forces, the Commander in Chief of the Army, Ricardo Martínez, recognised and condemned corrupt practices within military bodies, even denouncing the existence of new irregularities [3]. Internal publications also developed special issues concerning corruption as transparency, such as the army’s “Lessons learned from a Fraud” and a number of the magazine Defence Today (Defensa al día) about “Measures to strengthen probity, transparency and internal control” [4, 5, 6]. However, there are differences in how civil and military authorities perceive irregularities. Some analysts have even questioned the substantive collaboration of military authorities in current lawsuits involving malfeasance in the army [7].

Accusations signalling the misuse of resources from the Restricted Law of Copper, which derived in the prosecution of the commander in chief of the army and other generals, triggered government communications concerning the control of corruption in defence. The latest edition of the “Book of the Defence” included a specific section on “probity, transparency, and control” [1], and after a change in the government coalition, the new minister of defence declared that “there can be no doubt about the probity and the ethics with which [the missions in defence] fulfilled their functions” [2]. Concepts of probity, transparency and internal and external control have been used in interviews with the press and presentations to Special Investigatory Commissions in Congress [3, 4]. Since of the uncovered cases of fraud and malfeasance, every new minister of defence is publicly requested to refer to measures of probity and control. The new minister recently declared he “asks to be informed of every penny spent in defence” [5]. However, some commentators and the press have questioned the effectiveness and consistency of the commitment of the Armed Forces and defence institutions to control corruption and pushing forward reforms in budget transparency and accountability [6, 7]. The main concern is that the institution still deals with these issues internally, and the commitment to strengthen external control and transparency is still insufficient in the details.

The MDN developed an “Agenda of Probity, Austerity, and Transparency in the Armed Forces” with fifteen specific measures to guarantee administrative and fiscal integrity and to control risks associated with corruption. The agenda was created in coordination with the commander and chiefs of the armed forces and an external audit committee, and it sought to develop new channels of accountability and to promote civil control [1]. Nonetheless, differences between civil and military officials are perceived. Some military authorities have advocated for the retiring of accused officers instead of their formal prosecution [2]. Likewise, there has been a lack of consistency between the moment in which irregularities were known by military officials and commanders and the timing of the denunciation of these acts [3]. With regards to unit-level communication, it was hard to find relevant evidence of commitment to anti-corruption and integrity across the armed forces. As such, this indicator is not scored and is marked “Not Enough Information.”

The head of the Central Military Commission is also the General Secretary of the CCP. In the last 7 years, Xi Jinping, who holds both posts, has launched the most extensive, intensive and effective anticorruption campaign of the last 40 years. It is successful in terms of enforcement but also in terms of removing bureaucratic bastions of corruption and introducing long-term anticorruption mechanisms. [1] He has given numerous internal and public speeches on the need to battle corruption in the Army. The other CMC members (such as by CMC Vice-Chairman Zhang Youxia) and the MoD leadership have also repeatedly commited to eradicating corruption in the armed forces. New regulations, Party documents and the MoD’s White Papers reaffirm this stance. Characteristically, since 2015, when Xi Jinping’s anticorruption campaign reached the PLA, the official newspaper of the Armed Forces, the PLA Daily, has published over 200 articles on anticorruption, including speeches by leaders, new regulations and policies.

Since 2015, the CCP/CMC leadership has been very vocal about its commitment to anticorruption in frequent speeches and public statements. As China is ruled by an authoritarian regime, engagement with the media and social actors is mainly one-sided, with the government controlling the narrative. Still, the CCP and the CMC repeatedly express their commitment to anticorruption measures and kept the topic high on the political and military agenda. It should be noted, however, that the degree of detail in these pronouncements is not generally sufficient. In particular, official statements expressing the state’s and army’s commitment to fighting corruption, albeit strong, do not provide information on specific intergrity measures and management of risk and mainly focus on the number of officers investigated and/or prosecuted. [1]

The Party’s pledge to fight corruption is routinely repeated on different occasions and in publications throughout the PLA and the MoD. These include leadership speeches, articles, illustrations that are widely circulated within the army at all levels. [1,2,3,4,5,6]

Between 2016 and 2018, the Minister of Defence made a clear commitment to the fight against corruption. This was seen in the signing of different international agreements, including an agreement between the Ministry of Defence and NATO to strengthen the fight against corruption. The cooperation seeks to strengthen transparency and institutional integrity, through protocols of good practices. [1] The work with NATO allowed for the generation of self-assessment processes of the risks and threats of corruption in the defence sector and defined various measures and tools to mitigate them, in addition to the implementation of good practices and prevention of acts of corruption. [2] In fact, in July 2019 the Ministry of Defence reported that “the second self-evaluation and peer review in Integrity Construction will begin, in accordance with the standards of (…) NATO.” [1] The Vice-Ministry of Strategy and Planning is in charge of that process, along with the Internal Control Office and other offices in charge of implementing the integrity processes, bringing together different evaluations and national and international indexes in the national strategic plan. At the national level, the Ethical Barometer seeks to identify the perception of the Ethical Management System of centralised and decentralised organisations in the sector, while the Institutional Ethical Management System Survey seeks to identify the perception of officers and non-commissioned officers of the public force about the ethical management system of each of the organisations in the sector. There also exists the institutional ethical management survey for professional soldiers in the Military Forces. [3] The current Minister of Defence has continued to fulfill the obligations of the Transparency Law and of the President’s Government Program to Fight Corruption and Greater Austerity, however, various controversies have emerged regarding situations of corruption within the Military Forces. The government’s response to these cases has been limited and temporary, in the face of an apparent need to reform the sector’s doctrines and policies. [4] Likewise, some statements by the current Defence Minister regarding corruption cases related to extrajudicial executions, assassinations of social leaders, and privileges within the armed forces have shown certain inconsistencies compared to the claims of other sector officials. [5, 6, 7] In practice, privileges and situations persist that perpetuate corruption in the defence sector. Furthermore, the lack of transparency on certain issues suggests that this is systemic in institutions.

In 2017 and 2018, the Minister of Defence and the Commanders of the Armed Forces declared their public commitment to fight corruption. During these years, the Defence Sector had the aim of transforming relations between the citizenry and the Armed Forces in order to generate institutional trust in the post-conflict framework. [1] Institutional discourse was oriented toward strengthening the principles and values of the defence sector. General Alberto José Mejía reported that the process of transformation of the Armed Forces includes strengthening capacities, education, and ethics and values through a policy of integrity and transparency. Opinion columns espoused the importance of ethical practices and the application of transparency rules within the armed forces, and the Minister of Defence (2014-2018) made strong statements regarding different acts of corruption, suggesting the suspension and withdrawal of military personnel responsible for such acts. [2] On an institutional level, the Internal Control Office, defines several processes to fight corruption and promote integrity: a) Ethical Barometer, which seeks to identify the perception of the System Ethical Management of centralised and decentralised organisations in the sector; b) survey of the institutional ethical management system to identify the perception of the officers and non-commissioned officers of the public force about the ethical management system of each of the organisations in the sector; and c) Institutional Ethical Management Survey for Professional Soldiers in the Armed Forces. [3] Despite the existence of all these measures and a permanent commitment within the Ministry of Defence, especially in the internal control offices, there continue to be multiple scandals related to cases of corruption within the Military Forces, related on the one hand to the existence of a military directive to double the number of casualties by the Armed Forces, which opened the debate about the risk of possible extrajudicial executions; and on the other hand, the corruption network of privileges, promotions, and transfers within the Army, which involves high-ranking military officers. Faced with these cases, the pertinent investigations have been carried out, calling four Army Generals to testify, while the Minister of Defence and the Commander General of the Military Forces spoke before various media claiming that the respective investigations will continue. [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] Although there is a public commitment to fight corruption, there is evidence that shows that corruption continues inside the Military Forces.

As a result of the commitment by the Armed Forces to transparency and integrity, in 2016 under the direction of Commander Alberto José Mejía Ferrero, the Directorate of Application of Transparency Standards of the Army (DANTE) was created, to enhance institutional transparency, combat corruption, and employ methods to enhance the integrity of the Forces, reducing the risks to the population. [1] DANTE is in the General Command of the Army, at the strategic level in the Military Forces, and under the responsibility of the Second Commander of the Army. [2] The transparency replication system works through the cascade methodology, according to which the divisions have an aid officer, directly responsible for the implementation of transparency measures, and their action goes down to the brigades where there is also a direct manager who replicates the strategy to the tactical units. Therefore, high levels of commitment are generated by the Commanders and leaders of the units. DANTE has generated a series of communicative strategies called “I am DANTE,” which address transparency and integrity. [3] There has also been a wrist ribbon added to the military uniform with the slogan.

A number of easily accessible publications and methodological tools have been generated as a result of DANTE, including: (i) the ABC of transparency and integrity, an education chart and doctrine that is part of the training process for all Armed Forces; (ii) the DANTE Transparency Journal with two publications since 2016; (iii) the publication of the code of institutional ethics; and (iv) the implementation of a virtual course on transparency and integrity. [4, 5] These have identified shortcomings in state procurement processes, specifically in pre-contractual processes, and the selection processes of bidders. A policy of transparency and integrity has been created from the shortcomings identified, allowing for a mitigation of risks through improvement actions. Although there is an obvious commitment to generate policies and programmes around transparency and integrity, corruption scandals continue to arise within the Military Forces, showing that measures to promote integrity or risk management are not well implemented. [6]

The only item that was published in the MoD magazine (Magazine Défense, No. 3) that could be considered to address general corruption issues at MoD institutions was a piece published in January 2017 reporting on the findings by Transparency International’s GI Index 2015. However, the author (Jean-Francois Curtis) is not a chief/minister at MoD (1). Most of the internal communications regarding anti-corruption issues seem to have involved anti-racketeering or small arms issues–not broad-based anti-corruption initiatives. There is little evidence of a more pro-active general engagement at the top level of officers, including the minister of defence, based on the MoD internal communications. The MoD magazine (Magazine Défense, No. 1) from June 2016 had two pieces on efforts to end racketeering at police roadblocks. Since operation “Renard” was deployed in 2012, more than 1,000 weapons have been seized and 18 roadblocks have been dismantled. This is an example of internal communication on anti-racketeering in an MoD internal publication, whose publication director is the minister of defence himself (2).

The MoD magazine (Magazine Défense, No. 2) from October 2016, dedicated to the Military Programming Act (Loi de Programmation Militaire) and national security issues, reported on a communications platform linking the National Commission to combat Small Arms (ComNat-ALPC) with the Gendarmerie Nationale as a way to exchange information on the trafficking in small arms. The chief of staff representing the then minister of defence made statements regarding the need to improve the traceability of small arms (3):

“As part of the implementation of its National Action Plan to Combat the Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons, the National Commission the fight against small arms and light weapons (ComNat-Alpc), undertook to set up a system of interconnection between squadrons of the Gendarmerie Nationale and the Armies of Côte d’Ivoire, in accordance with the ECOWAS Convention on Small Arms and Light Weapons…Jean-Paul Malan, Chief of Staff, representing the Minister to the President of the Republic, in charge of Defense, welcomed this operation which allows the registration and management of arms movements” (3).

The MoD magazine (Magazine Défense, No. 2) from October 2016 carried a piece on the closure of illicit gold-mining operations. During a visit to a clandestine gold-mining operation in the district of Buyo (Western Region) on July 17, 2016, then Minister of Defence Alain Richard Donwahi declared the illicit mining operation officially closed. But he failed to mention the involvement of members of the armed forces in this type of operation, which is a widespread corruption issue at the MoD (4).

The recent ministers of defence and army chiefs of staff have publicly committed to a general anti-corruption agenda since the end of the post-election crisis of 2010-2011. But due to political alliances and the threat of soldier mutinies, such commitments are made only indirectly at public events. The ministers of defence and army chiefs of staff routinely use the codeword of “discipline” to address values or codes of military conduct, but that they fail to address specific incidents of corruption involving local zone commanders known as COMZONES due to the political liabilities. The current Defence Minister Hamed Bakayoko acknowledged the image problem of the armed forces and addressed the reforms underway to help restore its “tarnished image” by referring to “discipline” and “mentality changers” (Ivorian Press Agency (AIP) on 2 Nov. 2018) (1).

There have also been public communiqués regarding disciplinary issues in the armed forces since the soldiers’ mutiny of January 2017 in Bouaké and other towns, in which soldiers rebelled to demand wage increases and upgrades to barracks infrastructure. The then Minister of Defence Alain Richard Donwahi announced an agreement, as long as “discipline” was maintained (2). The most recent event illustrating Minister of Defence Hamed Bakayoko’s public commitment to root out corruption at MoD is from November 5, 2018. The APA source describes his firing of 48 soldiers in 2017-2018. According to the source, the Minister supports draft legislation that would impose administrative sanctions on members of the military (3). With the Military Programming Act (Loi de Programmation Militaire, LPM) through 2020, the MoD can be said to be going through a reform process. The LPM contains several integrity commitments, but few top officials address these issues at public events directly and explicitly.

There is a low level of public commitment to anti-corruption and integrity issues by unit commanders and less senior military leaders. As in 34B, such commitments are expressed indirectly and only occasionally in public statements, and often prefer the usage of the codeword of “discipline” instead of “corruption”. In May 2017, a former military commander calling himself Officer Zinzin (Adjutant Zinzin) revealed the backstories behind the soldier mutinies in Bouaké and the discovery of a weapons cache at the home of Soul to Soul, the Protocol Director of NA President Guillaume Soro. But the revelations of purported corruption were made under a pseudonym (1).

In January 2018, the Chief of Staff of the Ivorian Armed Forces, General Sékou Toure, promised that the military would cease being problematic for the government during a ceremony in honour of President Ouattara. During his speech, General Toure stated that his goal was to restore the “tarnished image of the Armed Forces” (2). “In 2017, 230 soldiers and gendarmes were laid off for misconduct, desertion and other breaches of discipline, according to a report by the Chief of Staff. In 2018, I promise to restore the tarnished image of the army,” promised General Sekou Toure” (2). Whenever a unit commander or a junior member of the military establishment publicly denounce corruption, it is done anonymously.

Research indicates that top-down internal communication and commitment to integrity and anti-corruption is rare. A review of the (by late 2019 discontinued) newspaper “Forsvarsavisen” (The Defence Journal), which was published by the Defence Command and distributed to all personnel both civilian and military, shows that within 14 issues from 2018-2019, anti-corruption was commented on once by the Chief of Defence (who had an editorial in each issue) [1], and once there was a brief mention of a new internal guideline on how to handle incapacity [2]. Further, these two instances occured in relation to the media exposé of potential cases of fraud within the Defence, and communication must thus be seen as having a reactive rather than proactive function. A senior officer confirmed that there is close to no focus on anti-corruption and integrity measures in the internal communication. Where they are mentioned, it is in general and bland terms [3].

Research has identified several instances where the Chief of Defence, the Minister of Defence or the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence have made some kind of public comment or statement on commitment to anti-corruption. This for example occurs as (rare) interviews [1, 2]. In a review of the ministerial press releases during the last couple of years, research identified only four where statements in relation to corruption were made [3, 4, 5, 6]. Further, these statements are short and express criticism of specific cases of fraud. Statements in press conferences held in relation to cases of fraud also express criticism and concern [7]. A review of the Defence Command press releases of the last couple of years show two statements by the Chief of Defence [8, 9]. These statements were also made in relation to a specific case of financial fraud and abuse of powers. Viewed collectively, the statements amount to communication that is, as mentioned in Q34A, reactive in nature. All the statements were made after a number of (potential) cases of fraud, of undeclared incapacity, misuse of credit cards etc. had been made public. Communication of commitment not to accept such cases and to probe into them thus appears to be part of the crisis management strategy and not an articulated constant integrated concern or focus area. Further, two succeeding Ministers of Defence have played down or trivialised instances that, according to experts and the general public (judging by the public reaction), raised concerns about Defence leadership violations of the Public Administration Act and a general bad management culture [10, 11, 12]. However, in two recent interviews, the Minister of Defence has expressed strong commitment to reform the ministerial area in order to avoid corruption etc. [13, 14]. In conclusion, while commitment to root out fraud and nepotism in the defence is made publicly, the statements appear to be superficial, opportunistic and reactive. Further, they are relatively few. Not even when the Chief of Army was removed and replaced due to allegations of corruption (abuse of powers (“tjenestemisbrug”) and gross neglect of duty), did the Chief of Defence comment on this fact. Instead he commented that the new Chief of Army was the right man to implement the defence agreement in the Army [15]. Further, the word corruption (or anti-corruption) is never used by officials.

Research found no evidence that unit commanders and leaders focus on communicating commitment to an anti-corruption message. As reported in Q34A, the internal defence journal (Forsvarsavisen) did not contain many statements about good conduct and commitment to anti-corruption [1, 2]. Forsvarsavisen no longer exists, but a new outlet is in the process of being set up. As further stated, a senior officer confirmed that there is close to no focus on anti-corruption and integrity measures in the internal communication [3]. This was confirmed by a source in the Defence, who noted that the lack of communication of an anti-corruption message was not an expression of a deficiency, but rather an expression that good conduct is internalised in the organization and conveyed to new employees as part of their induction [4]. Further, the source noted that communication of anti-corruption is simply not equally relevant in all parts of the Defence, where many positions are not sensitive ones. An informal look at different Facebook acounts that also communicate internally does not appear to convey an anti-corruption message [5].

According to our sources, there are no internal communications of any type with regards to corruption or corruption activities (1), (2), (3). There is no evidence of meetings or any form of internal communication about the sector’s commitment to fighting corruption.

Examining tens of news pieces and press releases going a year back on the official website of the MoD, there was no mention whatsoever of anti-corruption, and there was not a single communication about the commitment integrity (1). The same also applies to the Facebook page of the Armed Forces spokesperson (2). However, there have been some statements about countering the smuggling of drugs and weapons (3). This was confirmed by our interview sources (4), (5), (6).

After listening to some recent speeches by defence leaders addressing other officers (e.g. graduation ceremonies), anti-corruption issues were mentioned, though most of the speeches were about counter-terrorism efforts (1), (2). Other than these examples, there is no mention of issues of transparency, anti-corruption and integrity in the defence sector on any of the armed forces’ official platforms. According to our sources, there are no statements with regards to corruption. The MoD does not see corruption as strategic risk despite the clear evidence of widespread corruption within the army (3), (4), (5).

The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has shown commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures. In the Estonian Republic Basic Security Policy Act, the ministry has acknowledged that organised crime, as well as corruption, is one of the major security risks in the world. Corruption damages the country’s reputation and threatens its stability in many ways, in the private as well as the public sector. Reducing corruption is listed as one of the priorities in the Policy Act. [1] The Ministry has also taken proactive measures to prevent corruption. All of Estonia’s ministries (including MOF) have joined the governmental anti-corruption program. [2] Part of the reason why the Centre for Defence Investment was established in 2017 was to reduce the risk of corruption. [3] This was initiated by the Minister of Defence, who emphasised that the new institution would make defence procurement procedures more transparent and ensure they are correctly followed.
In the Defence Forces, the Ethics Code of the Estonian Defence Forces [4] is approved by the Commander of the Defence Forces, even though studies show that the Code of Ethics is not always implemented evenly by the officers. [5] There are difficulties in understanding the code and therefore also in following it, as shown by the study conducted at the Estonian National Defence College.

When the Commander of the Estonian Defence Forces or the Minister of Defence have mentioned corruption in their statements or interviews, the topic has mostly been about other, developing countries. [1] They have spoken about the importance of tackling corruption in this context. [2] The communication by the top management of Estonia’s defence sector often also includes comments on corruption-related incidents and issues that have happened in Estonia. For example, the former Commander of the Estonian Defence Forces mentioned corruption in relation to the low participation in conscription. The Defence Minister mentioned corruption in connection to a specific case. [3]
As interviewees point out, Estonia’s defence sector is quite exclusive and secretive. The public does not request information about corruption in the defence sector and therefore, the top management does not openly speak about it. All in all, corruption is not a prevalent topic discussed in relation to the defence sector. [4,5]

There have been some statements and publications about the importance of shared values in the military organisation that have involved senior armed forces officers. [1] While senior staff in the defence sector have not written extensively about values and conduct, there are nevertheless some examples. [2] It can be concluded that staff recognises that values and attitudes are an important basis for military organisations, even though messages are neither coordinated, regular nor expressed often.

There is little communication about corruption specifically – likely, because in its traditional form it is a minor issue in Finland. For example, see Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index in which Finland has been among the top 6 least corrupt countries in the world since the beginning of the indexing in 1995. [1]

The index has been criticised, however, for not being able to grasp the forms of structural corruption that are more prevalent in Finland. [2] However, ethical issues are addressed with different kind of language, for example, the ethical code of conduct. They are thus embedded, for example, in military oath, cadet promise, and oath of office. The Defence Forces is a member of the Anti-corruption network coordinated by the Ministry of Justice and trialling a whistleblower channel. [3]

In military magazines ethical issues and values of soldiers are discussed, for example, under the themes of education and training, values, and leadership (e.g. Kylkirauta 1/2015; 4/2015; 1/2016; 4/2017; 2/2019; 3/2020). In addition, corruption is specifically mentioned, for example, in the ethical set of rules of the Border Guard. [4]

There is little communication about corruption specifically – likely, because in its traditional form it is a minor issue in Finland. See e.g. Transparency International’s annual Corruption perceptions index in which Finland has been among the top 6 least corrupt countries in the world since the beginning of the indexing in 1995 [1]. The index has been criticised, however, for not being able to grasp the forms of structural corruption that are more prevalent in Finland [2].

However, ethical issues are addressed with different kind of language, for example, the ethical code of conduct. The chief of staff has in his speeches referred to, for example, good governance, justice, and the code of conduct of Finnish personnel in crisis management operations [3] and the importance of maintaining the trust of Finnish citizenry [4]. Yet, the chief of staff has also been accused of ignoring the “godfather system” within the Defence Forces [5], which existence he has denied [6]. The current Minister of Defence, Antti Kaikkonen, was himself convicted for breach of trust to five months probation in January 2013 [7]. When he was suggested to the ministerial position, a wide public discussion on his egilibility took place. [8,9,10] The Minister of Defence has in his speeches referred to, for example, the importance of extensive will to defend country as one of the corner stones of Finnish defence and the importance of competent personnel and equality [11,12].

There is little communication about corruption specifically – likely, because in its traditional form it is a minor issue in Finland. See e.g. Transparency International’s annual Corruption perceptions index in which Finland has been among the top 6 least corrupt countries in the world since the beginning of the indexing in 1995 [1]. The index has been critised, however, for not being able to grasp the forms of structural corruption that are more prevalent in Finland. [2] However, ethical issues are addressed with different kind of language, for example, the ethical code of conduct. They are thus embedded, for example, in military oath, cadet promise, and oath of office. In military magazines ethical issues and values of soldiers are discussed, for example, under the themes of education and training, values, and leadership (e.g. Kylkirauta 1/2015; 4/2015; 1/2016; 4/2017; 2/2019; 3/2020. In addition, corruption is specifically mentioned, for example, in the ethical set of rules of the Border Guard [3]. Military magazines were also reviewed in research for this indicator.

There is some evidence of a commitment from the Defence Minister, Chief of Defence, or Single Service Chiefs and the Ministry may issue ad hoc internal communications in support of anti-corruption and integrity measures. For instance, the February 2017 issue of the ‘Courrier juridique de la Défense’, which is the Ministry of Defence internal law review, explains the consequence of the “Sapin 2” Law on Transparency, Anti-corruption, Modernisation of Economic Life and Protection of whistleblowers [1]. It explains in detail (page 3) the new protection status for military whistleblowers: obligation to warn the hierarchy, and possibility of directly warning the judicial and administrative authority if the military hierarchy doesn’t respond. But the law forbids military whistleblowers from warning the public directly.
The “Sapin 2” Law has also changed the rules for public orders (page 6), applying to military procurements.

In addition to this legislative change, certain proactive measures and processes initiated by the Ministry in recent years have demonstrated some commitment to anti-corruption and integrity; for example, the establishment of ethics “referents” within departments, [2] and the undertaking of a “corruption risk mapping” exercise. [3] News articles, interviews, reports and new codes of conduct relevant to anti-corruption and integrity are published on the Ministry’s intranet as a form of internal communication. [4] There is also evidence that the Ministry has proactively communicated with national defence companies to inform them of its new ministerial anti-corruption code. [5]

There is little evidence of a public commitment from the Defence Minister, Chief of Defence, or Single Service Chiefs. Anti-corruption is not a theme often addressed by military staff. Through interviews with various types of defence sector experts (former military staff, [1] defence ministry executive [2]), it seems that many assume that corruption isn’t an issue within the French army, and therefore doesn’t require such focus.
Public commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures consists of general communications statements of a superficial or internal nature, with no reference to Chiefs or Ministers. New provisions created by the Sapin 2 Law [3] in late 2016 (empowerment of the Military Ethics Committee and its “déontologue en chef” [4]) seem to show an effort to acknowledge the importance of compliance and anti-corruption in military and civilian staff training.

No public record of statements about anti-corruption and integrity measures from a senior Ministry of Defence or armed forces staff were found. [1]

In order to support the implementation of the ‘Federal Government Directive Concerning the Prevention of Corruption in the Federal Administration’ (‘Richtlinie der Bundesregierung zur Korruptionsprävention in der Bundesverwaltung’), there is an internal service regulation that provides guidance and requires oversight, training and sensitisation of staff [1]. Control and implementation is the responsibility of heads of office (‘Dienststellenleitung’), who in turn are subject to top-down control. Corruption prevention units provide guidance and support. The BMVg cites an internal presentation cycle on compliance as an example of how the issue is highlighted internally. Specifically, the problem of corruption was highlighted during an opening lecture by a state secretary [2]. Former Minister von der Leyer has repeatedly emphasised the importance of increasing transparency in the Armed Forces, for example, during the 2019 graduation ceremony of the Bundeswehr ‘Leadership Academy’, she said that ‘without transparency, we cannot implement these significant changes (regarding equipment and personnel)’ [3]. These messages regarding transparency and compliance are a continuous theme of senior leadership communications.

Furthermore, the introduction of a Compliance Officer in 2017 represents an important mode of internal communication on the issue, including training, speeches and exchange between units [4].

While there is considerable internal communication on issues of corruption, there is no clear evidence that it is a key topic discussed by various functions within the Ministry. Instead, it appears that the issue is primarily addressed by the responsible units/functions.

In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on transparency, especially with regard to defence procurement. Former Minister von der Leyen consistently emphasised the need for transparency as an institutional objective, but also as a priority in the face of recent scandals (Gorch Fock, Berateraffäre) [1]. In addition to placing a strong emphasis on increased transparency in her speeches and interviews, she further emphasised the role of ‘compliance’ and ‘error management’ (Fehlerkultur), i.e. constructively and openly engaging with grievances and problems. ‘Corruption’ or ‘integrity’ are not the focus of BMVg communications. So far, the current Minister Kram-Karrenbauer has been less vocal about the importance of transparency, although she intends to continue her predecessor’s transparency programmes [2].

The commitment to transparency is also outlined in the 2016 White Paper on Defence, the roadmap for the Armed Forces for the upcoming years [3]. The recent ‘Transparency Initiative’ (‘Tranzparenzinitiative’) as well as the establishment of a compliance unit within the Ministry of Defence are concrete steps towards improving accountability. Furthermore, a recent sustainability report by the Ministry suggests that there is increasing awareness on anti-corruption issues [4].

Recent scandals, which were met with a culture of blame-shifting and cover-ups, have led CSOs and opposition MPs to question whether there is de-facto willingness for transparency/accountability. However, the President of the Federal Audit Office attested that there has been a positive development towards transparency in recent years, even though challenges persist [5].

With regard to speeches or media interviews that explicitly mention commitments to anti-corruption, there is not always a strong commitment to integrity. The collection of speeches by Defence Minister Kramp-Karrenbauer, for example, does not include many references to integrity or corruption prevention [6].

At the unit level, specific provisions are in place to ensure that the internal service regulations can be implemented and rendered relevant for the tasks facing each unit. Furthermore, the above-mentioned Compliance Management System – aiming to further good governance and integrity – is being developed and tested, and there are plans for it to be applied throughout the BMVg [1].

The above-mentioned ‘Transparency Initiative’ as well as the introduction of Compliance Management have frequently been met with criticism from military staff or military associations [2]. This criticism might not reflect an unwillingness to engage with anti-corruption/integrity per se, but rather a difference in approach to achieving integrity in the Armed Forces [3].

Beyond these findings, the assessor’s analysis could not find further evidence of a public focus on anti-corruption in statements by unit commanders and leaders.

There is a commitment by the Ministry of Defence to enhance anti-corruption measures and build integrity in the MOD. However, if internal communications are issued, these are not made publicly available; either on the MOD’s webpage or in the main Ghanaian newspapers such as Modern Ghana, Myjoyonline, GhanaWeb, Ghana News Agency, Graphic Online (1). There are general statements on new anti-corruption initiatives, but not many public comments. There is no evidence of internal communications around the issue.

The MOD’s commitment is more often demonstrated during public interventions and statements by the minister and senior staff, as well as during events and conferences. For instance, in August 2017 during the presentation of the Entity Tender Committee, established in compliance with the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921) (1), the Defence Minister, Dominic Nitiwul announced the online publication of the MOD’s tender processes (except for the procurement of confidential items) to improve the transparency of the procurement activities (2). On the same day, he encouraged the GAF to perform their role effectively and free from corruption stating, “the public know the GAF as being disciplined, and they will not forgive us for any infractions in the implementation of bad procurement and corrupt practices”.

The minister took part in the event “Winning the fight against corruption: a sustainable path to Africa’s transformation” organised to celebrate the 55th anniversary of the formation of the African Union (AU) in May 2018 (3).

In May 2018 the MOD organised, in partnership with the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE), an open forum for personnel to improve civic participation in the defence sector. During the event, the commitment to fighting corruption was reiterated (4).

Sporadic statements from senior armed forces officers mostly refer to the promotion of self-discipline, integrity, and professionalism among the Armed Forces personnel rather than specifically addressing corruption risks. For instance, in June 2018 Brigadier-General Francis Ofori stressed the need to maintain self-discipline to build and consolidate public confidence in the GAF (1). Also in June, Brigadier-General Mohammed Aryee speaking at a military parade military stressed the need of preserving the image of the Armed Forces with “discipline” and “self-sacrifice” (2), (3), (4), (5).

There is a commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Ministry of Defence. During interviews and speeches, officials sometimes declare themselves willing to combat corruption and promote transparency. Since the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2009, anti-corruption rhetoric has become prevalent. In 2015, for example, the then Minister of Defence Panos Kammenos stated that “we have already tabled an amendment, where in cases where we have proven bribes with court decisions abroad, there will be the possibility of compensation to the Greek state and the Ministry of National Defence” [3]. Yet, internal messaging is sporadic and limited in nature regarding support for anti-corruption and integrity measures [1, 2]. The MoD is not transparent enough regarding relevant measures. The current leadership has not explicitly defined corruption as a problem.

Commitment is publicly stated, though perhaps not strongly. Chiefs and ministers may publicly speak about values or codes of conduct, but fail to mention specific integrity measures and corruption risk management. In October 2016, for instance, the then Minister of Defence Panos Kammenos argued that “the entanglement, then, is not only the entanglement of politics and business, but also of people in power. Since 1999, since the black period of [Prime Minister] Simitis, we have brought to light all the black transactions of the ‘Tsochatzopoulos’, the ‘Liakonakos’, the ‘Papantoniou'” [1]. In March 2017, the then Alternate Minister of Defence Dimitris Vitsas declared that “the fight against corruption and entanglement is not a matter of law or morality, it is not only a matter of criminality and accountability… it is a matter of deep politics, linked to the way the state operates. In other words, the fight against corruption and entanglement is a political act and, in the final analysis, it is also a developmental act” [2]. Since New Democracy came to power in July 2019, anti-corruption rhetoric has been less frequent.

This commitment is reflected in service publications, through regular statements by senior ministry staff and senior armed forces officers about values and conduct. However, officials do not address integrity measures. As a result, unit commanders avoid discussing the issue with subordinates because there is no clear overall policy [1, 2].

There is a commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Defence Ministry (MoD) and senior members of the armed forces, but it may not be communicated directly by officers. Seemingly the commitment is driven by the willingness to meet the expectations of the key allies. Therefore, as highlighted in other questions, integrity reports are shallow and do not contain any threat analyses or examples of corruption cases. The number of available internal communications relating to the integrity or anti-corruption measures for the public is extremely low. The Journal of the Ministry of Defence contains instructions by the previous defence minister regarding the implementation of different integrity-related processes [1]. Speeches where top officials mentioned the importance of transparency have been found through the search engines. Active personnel suggested there is not even meaningful internal communication document on anti-corruption and integrity [2, 3, 4].

Recently, there has not been a single occasion when the minister or the chief of defence or the service chiefs have publicly mentioned the relevance or importance of anti-corruption measures [1].

Through interviews sources with close relations to unit commanders, or recently serving in similar leadership position suggested they had no responsibility to include integrity or anti-corruption elements into their training and they had limited knowledge on the governmental efforts [1, 2, 3]. Similarly, no information, interview, article on unit commanders mentioning the importance of anti-corruption efforts were found.

The current government’s election success in 2014 was centred on bringing greater transparency in governance and combating corruption [1]. Prime Minister Modi has sought to fight corruption and since taking office, has implemented a number of anti-corruption measures [2]. In July 2018, the government passed the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which amended and brought significant changes to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to bring the legal framework in conformity with current international practices of UNCAC. India widened the definition of criminal misconduct to include the briber giver. This Act is applicable to the defence sector [3][4].

There is a clear commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the MoD. The MoD has taken steps to suspend companies which have indulged in corrupt practices as seen in internal communication [5][6][7]. Defence Ministers Parrikar and Sitharaman have been vocal about commitment to anti-corruption measures [8][9][10]. As has newly appointed Defence Minister in the second Modi government, Rajnath Singh [11].

There is evidence of internal commitment to anti-corruption measures. Army Chief General Bipin Rawat recent remarks on corruption and measures to tackle it serve as a warning to all those involved in “corrupt practices” in directives circulated by him on the internal Army Wide Area Network [12].

Defence Ministers who have served under the current government Parrikar and Sitharaman have been vocal about commitments to anti-corruption measures [1][2][3]. This has been demonstrated through speeches, interviews with media outlets and political mandates [4][5]. Newly appointed Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has committed to enhance transparency and strengthen anti-corruption mechanisms in the Armed Forces [6][7].

There is some evidence that Unit commanders and leaders make public statements about moral codes and conduct, recognition of issues that need to be addressed and at times, measures to address them. Army Chief General Bipin Rawat has recently publicly stated, “Rising cases of moral turpitude are a matter of concern. Strict punishment, including dismissal without pension, is being given to the offenders.” His statements serve as a warning to all those involved in “corrupt practices” in directives circulated by him on the internal Army Wide Area Network [1][2].

Moral codes and conduct are imbibed in cadet training and published on Armed Forces’ websites [3][4][5]. The commitment to anti-corruption is reflected in service publications [6].

The Ministry of Defence and the TNI are subject to the Bureaucratic Reform Policy, which has been required for all civil servants since 2008 in order to realise clean and free governance [1]. Internal communication regarding bureaucratic reform, including messages related to anti-corruption and good governance, is conducted in the form of speeches at regular monthly and special assemblies [2,3,4,5,6], staff coordination meetings [7], as well as organised briefings for Ministry of Defence employees. Briefings and awareness activities on the prevention of criminal acts of corruption are held at least once a year, focussing on a variety of topics, including corruption sanctions [8,9], awareness of money laundering regulations [10] and legal briefings on the protection of witnesses who report offences [11]. Briefings and awareness events generally involve the Minister of Defence or the relevant director general, with the KPK and the Attorney General’s Office are invited as speakers. Within the TNI, anti-corruption messages are conveyed in briefings and awareness activities related to the work programme of the Bureaucracy Reform Policy, which emphasises the development of integrity zones and clean bureaucracy areas [12,13,14,15], as well as in the speeches of Chiefs of TNI and/or Chiefs of Staff at regular and special assemblies. At the Independence Day ceremony on January 17, 2017, the Chief of TNI mandated all units in the TNI organisation to ‘cleanse the TNI of corruption’ [16]. This mandate was then distributed in writing via telegram from the General Chief of Staff of TNI, as the chairperson of the TNI Bureaucratic Reform, to the Vice Chiefs of Staff of each unit, as chairpersons of the Bureaucratic Reform in their respective units [17], to be delivered during assemblies in each unit.

Statements made by Ministry of Defence and TNI leaders to the media are generally intended to address bureaucratic reform policy issues [1,2], special events such as Anti-Corruption Day [3] and current cases of corruption. From 2016 to 2017, there were at least three cases of corruption in the procurement of defence equipment that surfaced in the media. This intensified discussion about how the Minister of Defence and Chief of TNI address corruption in their respective organisations. Therefore, the discussion in the media revolves around signs of potential corruption (weak points), monitoring procedures for the procurement of defence equipment, as well as commitment to action and punishment in cases of corruption [4,5,6,7,8,9,10].

Proactive anti-corruption measures and regular communication about integrity within the Ministry of Defence and TNI organisations are generally conducted within the framework of spreading and evaluating Bureaucratic Reform and published both in the media and on the organisations’ official websites. Anti-corruption statements have been made by various leaders, including the Commander of the Indonesian Main Naval Base (Lantamal) IX Ambon [1], the Chief of Staff of the Iskandar Muda Regional Military Command [2], the Commander of the II/Sriwijaya Regional Military Command [3] and the Chief of Staff of the VI/Mulawarman Regional Military Command [4]. There are clear explanations of good government, transparency and accountability, especially in the planning and procurement of defence equipment. However, there is a lack of further commitment beyond verbal statements. For example, in the case of the procurement of the AgustaWestland 101 (AW-101) helicopter in 2016-2017, Chief of Staff Gatot Nurmantyo took more decisive action with regard to investigating corruption. Furthermore, in his public speeches, the current Chief of Staff Hadi Tjahjanto has repeatedly highlighted the importance of professionalising the military and thereby fighting corrupton. Regardless of the verbal commitment from top-level officials, the investigation of the AW-101 case faced many hurdles. Most notably, the former Air Force chief, who was called as a witness, refused to attend the trial due to a ‘military confidentiality issue’ [5,6]. The involvement of both civilian and military personnel in the case also caused confusion as to whether the trial should be conducted in civil court or as a closed military trial.

There is no knowledge of internal communications about commitment to integrity and anti-corruption measures.

There is little comment by the defence minister in support of anti-corruption and integrity measures. The former deputy minister of defence, who is now the minister of defence has spoken out against corruption and in favour of transparency at a conference on improving the health of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Judiciary [1]. On another day, which seemed to be dedicated to journalists, the minister of defence at the time addressed the issue of the role of journalists in rooting out corruption [2]. While the messaging is delivered by the ministers/chiefs themselves, on the whole, it seems to be superficial.

According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the intelligence minister has spoken out against corruption and has declared it would help the other branches of power to fight it. However, the statement was very general and superficial [3].

A growing number of unit commanders and leaders seem to be speaking out against corruption, but mainly by highlighting their role in tackling the problem. An Iranian police commander has highlighted “the tough line his forces have taken against wrongdoers over economic crimes, saying the number of people arrested on major economic corruption charges has reached 60.” But he did not specifically speak against corruption within his own forces [1]. In an interview with Tasnim, Brigadier General Hossein Nejat said the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) intelligence department has been actively engaged in tackling corruption and has achieved good results in this regard. “One of the major tasks we care about is the fight against economic corruption,” the general said, adding that his forces work on two relevant legal cases every month on average and bring them to court [2].

Public endorsements of the fight against corruption, as declared by Al Abadi, are widely heard throughout the ministerial spectrum. There is no evidence; however, of an internal willingness to execute change and institute new processes. No documents in which concrete plans for rooting out defence corruption, particularly kickbacks and bribes which plague ministries of security and defence, are available online (1).

Officials regularly appear on local television platforms, ministerial addresses and ceremonies to discuss or expose corruption in an attempt, often, as a former army officer told TI, “to extricate themselves” (1). Head of Iraq’s outgoing parliamentary security and defence committee, Zamili mentioned that ‘180’ security-related corruption offences/files were handed to the CoI (2). The outcome of these investigations remains unclear. There are similar verbal commitments in 2019 from the existing Minister of Defence Najah al Shammari (3). What is common across both administrations are news items in which an undisclosed number of officers and senior leaders are referred to court on undisclosed charges without the verdict or outcome being made public in the aftermath of court proceedings. A former military officer interviewed for the assessment contends that “verbal commitment and polished public speeches from officers and ministers are politically motivated which key ministries simply parrot” (1).
Iraq’s war on corruption centres around verbal commitments voiced by the outgoing prime minister, Haider al Abadi (4), (5). The focus has been on restoring funds which officials have squandered through fake construction deals, fake contracts, or smuggled illegally to offshore havens (4), (5). Defence corruption took a back seat as a matter of priority within the PM-led anti-corruption scheme. There have been no direct publications or statements from defence officials. While cases of defence corruption do receive wide media attention in the local and international press, defence chiefs and ministers have not pledged commitment towards drafting an official anti-corruption law that applies to defence majors. A senior government official told Niqash (6) that senior positions grant “contracts affiliated to his party. Most … parties do this. That’s why no one would complain about corruption in federal ministries … then other politicians will complain about them” (6). Gathered evidence points to a mismatch between rhetoric and results, as a result of uncompetitive security actors and a general lack of willingness to eradicate corruption.

Across Iraqi state media, few unit commanders and leaders appear on TV with public comments. In cases where they do appear, victories against ISG are discussed as opposed to the war on domestic corruption. The MoD’s inspector general recently praised the joint efforts to tackle corruption, between GIs and the PMO (1), and ongoing workshops to address military culture and skill gaps.

There is some kind of commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the MInistry of Defence and senior members of the Armed Forces, but it may not be communicated directly by officers. There seems to be internal willingness to carry out processes, as demonstrated by internal strategic communications. Yet, in general it is not seen as a major issue which needs discussion (1). It is important to say that from my extensive online searches, it seems that political actors and defence related personnel do not often mention corruption, the fight against it andor the obligation to resist and eradicate it. Most speeches and press conferences about the subject occur when a corruption related incident is revealed to the public and there is interest in that. For example, Mr. Avi Gabbai’s speech relating corruption in the public sector (referring to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) who was at the time the chairman of the “Avoda” political party (2). No further information could be found on this issue, the Ministry of Defence, the office of the State Comptroler, and Israel Defence Forces (IDF) were contacted, however, no response was provided.

Some commitments to anti-corruption are publicly stated, however, not very strongly and rather superficially (1). Chiefs and Ministers sometimes publicly speak about values or code of conduct, but fail to mention specific integrity measures and management of risk (2) (3). Yet, the submarine scandal has raised a stronger debate about anti-corruption tools.

This commitment is reflected throughout the Ministry of Defence and armed forces by statements by senior ministry staff and senior armed forces officers about values and conduct. However, officials fail to speak in depth about integrity measures or management of risk. There are only a few statements of commitment by senior Ministry of Defence or armed forces staff, however they are rather general statements of the government, in particular the Ministry of Defence (1) (2). Still, there are regular internal briefings where leaders speak clearly about this issue. Before each operation that is carried out among civilians there is a detailed briefing as to how individuals should conduct themselves with special emphasis on rules of conduct regarding abuse, theft and looting. There are general guidelines but the briefing is oral and is done directly to the forces involved therefore each commander will have his own emphasis. In the last decades in each battalion there is a position of a “population officer” often with a legal background, this position was created following lessons from operations in Gaza. The job of this officer is to consult the commander on various humanitarian issues and how the unit should conduct itself vis-a-vis the population. Yet, we have not found any official statement or policy that refers to anti-corruption and integrity measures, especially in the defence and security sector (3). Also, there isn’t any official statement of the IDF on their website (4).

At the end of 2019, the Anticorruption Supervisor instructed that all employees be informed of the publication of the new 2020-2022 Corruption Prevention Plan, of its code of conduct, and of the consequences of violations, and of the protections for whistleblowers, and be involved in the management of old and new risks [1]. Awareness is ensured from Commanders at all levels, at unit and management levels. Moreover, both the Chiefs of Staff and the top Management of the technico-administrative area of the Ministry of Defence are engaged with the sensibilisation of personnel on issues of corruption and integrity [2]. Another instance of proactive efforts are the conference organised by the Army’s Comando per la Formazione e Scuola di Applicazione in February 2019, which represented an important opportunity for both military and civilian personnel to improve their knowledge of anticorruption and organised crime issues [3]. In addition, the Code of conduct approved in 2014 and updated in 2018 is complementary to the Corruption Prevention Plans and outlines in a detailed manner the duties and principles that the Ministry of Defence’s employees must abide to [4]. Finally, it is relevant to report that the Defence administration has a total of 25 “referent directors” (Dirigenti-referenti) supporting the activities of the anti-corruption Supervisor and reporting the informative activities performed during the year. The supervisor then reports results to the national anticorruption authority persuant to article 45 of legislative decree 33/2013 [5]. Despite the aforementioned proactive engagement and public commitment, it is not possible to find mention to anti-corruption measures in service publications.

One can find some evidence of public commitments to anti-corruption and integrity by all three Defence Ministers who served in the last five years. In 2015, Min. Pinotti signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Anticorruption Authority (ANAC) [1] – signed also by general commander of Carabinieri – and made claims against corruption in the context of mafia infiltrations investigations [2]. Min. Trenta recalled the importance of anti-corruption at a summit on the Western Balkans in 2019 [3], while Min. Guerini was vocal in declaring the Defence apparatus the wronged party in recent claims of fraudulent public contracts for Armed Forces [4]. Guerini also called for in-depth investigation in the context of grave criminal allegations pending for some members of the Arma dei Carabinieri in the summer of 2020 [5]. Commenting on the same events, the Commander General of the Carabinieri Giovanni Nistri declared the accused militaries as “unworthy of the uniform” [6]. The Carabinieri’s Commander General also signed a Memorandum of Understanding on the fight against corruption with the “Libera” Association in 2018 [7] and the same year the then Chief of Staff of the Air Force intervened at a conference on transparency and lawfulness organised by the University of Salerno [8]. A Memorandum of Understanding between the ANAC and the Guardia di Finanza was also signed in 2018 [9]. Nonetheless, public commitments fail to mention specific integrity measures and management of risk.

Public commitments to anti-corruption from unit commanders and leaders appear to be rare. For instance, the Deputy Minister of Defence Tofalo failed to address corruption issues on the occasion of his visit to the Navy apparatus in Taranto (Puglia) in January 2019 [1], where noteworthy investigations concerning bribery had been concluded or were taking place at that time [2]. When seeing the lack of evidence of public statements, one can suppose that such communications take place in the internal, reserved sphere.

The Ministry of Defence of Japan (MOD) and the Self-Defence Force (SDF) have a series of topic months or topic weeks during which they focus on specific compliance issues. A list of these periods is found in the Compliance Guidance. During the time of focus, it is customary that commanders at all levels issue instructions and directives on anti-corruption. [1] One of the periods in the list for 2019 focused on anti-corruption: the SDF ethics focus week December 1-7. [2] A search on the webpages of the Minister of Defence turned up several pamphlets, posters, instructions and plans for the SDF ethics week in December for 2016, 2017 and 2018, but no other focus periods that deal with anti-corruption. Several of these documents mentioned that the Administrative Vice-Minister of Defence, the highest administrative staff member of the ministry, would issue instructions, but no explicit mentions of such announcements by the Minster or Chiefs were found. [3]

Defence Chiefs and Ministers are committed to the statements in the Defence White Book. A commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures can be seen in the annual Defence White Books, in the form of emphases on reforms of the Ministry of Defence and increased fairness and transparency in procurement. Defence of Japan 2016 pointed out that the establishment of ATLA had led to the achievement of both a procurement reform and the strengthening of defence technology base. [1] Defence of Japan 2018 has a chapter on Reform of the central organisation of the Ministry of Defence in 2018, [2] but the reforms mentioned do not have any clear link to anti-corruption work. The Ministry of Defence has increased the use of comprehensive assessment of bids and has made efforts to increase the efficiency of bidding procedures. It is also implementing measures to avoid further cases of padded invoices and falsification of test results by defence related businesses, which happened in 2012, reconsideration of penalties, as well as the achievement of effective audit. [3] Corruption issues were not mentioned in the speeches by Prime Minister Abe, at the graduation ceremonies at the National Defence Academy of Japan in 2019 [4] and 2018, [5] nor was any indication found that top officials of the Ministry of Defence address issues of integrity or anti-corruption at public events. [6]

Education on compliance with laws and regulations is given year-round by the Ministry of Defence and Self-Defence Force. Most strongly related to anti-corruption work is the SDF ethics focus week in December (see 34A). During this week, SDF personnel of various ranks give instructions and statements that emphasise anti-corruption. [1] Emphasis is also given year-round to teaching personnel, in particular those who work with procurement and contracting, to avoid corruption in procurement. Staff are also given instructions about whistleblowing, which can be used to inform about possible corruption and is a measure that can strengthen integrity as well. Other topics that are emphasised year-round, such as the responsible handling of firearms, while related to integrity in a broad sense, do not seem to be related to anticorruption. [2] No indication was found that senior ministry staff or senior armed forces officers make statements about integrity measures or management of risk. [3]

There is very little internal communication or efforts to support commitment to anti-corruption. Usually, such communications come with external efforts to train officers on anti-corruption and integrity measures [1,2].

Commitment to countering corruption is publicly stated – though perhaps not strongly. There are many examples of Chiefs and Ministers speaking about anti-corruption measures being on the list of their priorities, without specifying these measures or strategies. The Prime Minister, acting as Defence Minister as well, often makes statements about the importance of countering-corruption and the Government’s dedication to it [1, 2]. In official statements, the King of Jordan Abdullah II, who is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, also expresses his dedication and desire to end corruption in the country [3, 4, 5]. These statements fail to mention specific integrity measures and management of risk.

Other than public statements and commitments to countering corruption made by very senior officials associated with the defence sector, including those by the King and the Prime Minister [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], there are many instances of statements from unit commanders and leaders. These statements are usually presented at international and regional events.

The KDF projects itself through its service charter as being guided by well laid out core values that include integrity in adherence to the Forces’ rules and regulations,as well as fairness in all its activities including hiring and discipline of personnel. [1] There is some evidence to indicate that KDF develops anti-corruption strategies and conducts internal sensititization to curb corruption. For example, in 2017 KDF cited corruption as one of its challenges to service delivery and has lauched several initiatives to prevent it occuring in its department. [2]

However there are limited details of these strategies. External messaging on anti-corruption and integrity are mainly sporadic and done through the media, often when prompted by major events such as recruitment, or at times when operational issues such counter-terrorism are linked to corruption. [3] For the latter, in instances when counter-terrorism operations in Somalia were on several occassions have linked KDF soldiers to illicit activites, MOD has often chosen to dismiss those allegations. [4]

Messages from the Defence Ministry always lean more towards values and the Code of Conduct as reported in local media. [1] Public messages addressing specific issues such as anti-corruption, integrity measures and management risks are rare. The calls for increased integrity measures in the defence forces are publicly declared during recruitment exercises and also in the event of terror attacks. [2]

In January 2020, a new Cabinet Secretary assumed office in the Ministry of Defence. During a visit to a local Air Base, Dr. Monica Juma spoke of the general role of soldiers being of service to the country. There are instances where the minister of defence has come to deny allegations of corruption in the defence sector. One such instance was on allegations of smuggling levelled against KDF soldiers operating in Somalia. [3] She also expressed her commitment to supporting the defence forces to deliver its core mandate. [4]

Such are the messages that ministers and chiefs deliver, without directly addressing anti-corruption issues. However, there are instances in the past where the leadership has, on its own admission, noted that there are incidences of corruption and hence the need to curb it; for example, Joseph Kasaon, the Vice Chief of Defence Forces, noted at a press conference ahead of public recruitment there have been past incidences of bribery, and hence there is need to work with anti-corruption institutions to prevent occurences of such practices. [5]

Occassionally, military unit commanders and leaders make statements on the values and conduct of the armed forces. Such communication happens during special occasions, such as military graduation ceremonies, which are often reported about through the Ministry of Defence website. [1]

There is no information to ascertain whether the Minister of Defence and the Commander of the Kosovo Security Forces show internal commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures. However, when appointed, the Minister of Defence confirmed his commitment to fulfil the duties and projects outlined by the Ministry of Defence [1]. The Integrity Plan of the Ministry of Defence for 2019-2022 contains a short introduction from the Minister stating that the main objectives of the Ministry of Defence and the Security Forces are to promote good governance and to implement the principles of integrity, transparency and accountability in line with international norms and practices [2]. In his foreword, the Minister emphasised that the Integrity Plan is a documented process for assessing the level of sensitivity within the Ministry of Defence and the Security Forces, as well as its exposure to unethical and corrupt practices [2]. Furthermore, the Minister states that the Integrity Plan aims to strengthen the integrity and anti-corruption culture through identifying risks, planning, and implementing appropriate measures, and through establishing an overall anti-corruption system which would result in enforcing the rule of law and enhancing public trust in national defence institutions [2]. The Minister is therefore clearly committed to reducing and eliminating potential corruption risks in the institution [3].

According to the government reviewer, there is a clear commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Ministry of Defense, as stated by the Minister of Defense and COMFSK [3]. Internal engagement is demonstrated through proactive anti-corruption measures and regular communications on integrity by officials/officers at all levels and with all forms of communication. There is a consistency of placing the message for integrity, identifying and addressing possible findings and irregularities and providing evidence that the integrity system is being implemented [4] in periodic reports.

There is no information to ascertain whether the Minister of Defence and the Commander of the Kosovo Security Forces show public commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures. Several statements have been made by the Minister and General Secretary of Defence, for instance for the launch of the Integrity Plan (2019-2022) in mid-July 2019 [1].
This being said, the Minister of Defence (Mr. Rrustem Berisha) and the former Deputy Minister of Defence (Mr. Agim Çeku) have been charged with being involved in manipulating the registration process of the 1999 war veterans of the Kosovo Liberation Army [2]. Media has reported that the US Embassy in Kosovo is not communicating to either senior officials due to this charge against them [3]. Mr. Çeku, was dismissed and submitted his resignation in June 2019, following the call from the current ruling party to dismiss all public officials of the Democratic Party of Kosovo who are under investigation for corruption or nepotism [4, 5]

Commitment is evidenced predominantly in the Integrity Plan, however there is some committment through public statetements. Unit commanders are committed to the Integrity Plan (2019-2022) of the Ministry of Defence, which strengthens integrity and anti-corruption culture within the Ministry of Defence and the Kosovo Security Forces by identifying, analysing and assessing risks, as well as by addressing these through adequate measures and actions [1]. The Integrity Plan is based on the following principles or commitments to integrity: i) necessity to define clear objectives for building integrity; ii) necessity to establish an institutionalised environment based on control and accountability; and iii) recognition of integrity as an inherent part of good governance within the Ministry of Defence and the Kosovo Security Forces [1]. Beyond this, the Code of Ethics from Feb 2019 for the Kosovo Security Forces e references commitments of senior armed officers as well as of leaders within the Security Forces [2]. For example, the Code of Ethics, stipulates that all Security Forces commanders are responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of their members [3]. With regards to the implementation of the Code of Ethics, the leaders of the Security Forces are responsible for checking that rules are implemented and that relevant disciplinary procedures are followed up in case of violations [4].

The heads of security agencies in Kuwait have made a commitment to anti-corruption measures, but these ministries do not regularly communicate that to officers, former and current officials, activists and an analyst said (1,2,3).

They just have ordered their employees to hand over to the ACA their financial disclosures, and to accept some of the recommendations of the CSC regarding their pay structure.

The changes are, however, minor, they said. They simply concern formalizing the job description of some employees and asking employees to bring in their degrees to make sure they have the credentials they claimed to have when they were hired. Some of those who lied have had their pay reduced as a result, but there are no reliable estimates on the matter.

The security agencies have allowed the ACA to hold workshops and lecture officers on anti-corruption methods since the body was formed in 2016, officials said (4,5,6). The SAB and the CSC have always been allowed to lecture officers as well about more newer methods of administration and fighting corruption, they added.

High-ranking security and defence officials do not discuss corruption in their institutions explicitly or clearly. They rarely give press interviews and they do not ususally give public speeches.

ACA and SAB officials do routinely speak to the media about finding corruption in all Government ministries. The security agencies are not given special attention in this campaign, officials and activists said (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

The closest thing to a direct statement of commitment from the Defence Minister came in April 2018, when the state news agency KUNA announced that the Minister had met Johann Graf Lambsdorff, a German anti-corruption expert (7). The minister also told reports in February 2018 that most of the questions that the Parliament had about the aforementioned Caracal deal were valid and that he will cooperate with them (8).

There are very few statements from the security agencies discussing the issue of corruption, but there are many statements about integrity as one of the core values of their work. However, these statements lack depth and regularity. They are usually delivered through service publications and occasionally at unit parades and other military or police ceremonies, officials said (1, 2 and 3).

The May 2012 “Building integrity self-assessment: Peer Review Report” on Latvia made several recommendations [1] which the Ministry of Defence implemented between 2014 and 2018. The MOD included these measures in the Anti-Corruption Action Plan of the Ministry. Internal communication about anti-corruption efforts in the ministry and military is sporadic. For instance, the e-magazine for the military, www.sargs.lv, does not appraoach corruption in a comprehensive manner. [2]

According to the government reviewer, the initial training of young employees includes issues of conflict of interest and anti-corruption which is in line with the rules on the agenda. Employees at the State Administration School regularly attend courses related to the prevention of conflict of interest in the activities of public officials. In the annual assessment of staff, one of the components of the assessment is the “ethical” competence, which also indirectly contains the abovementioned issues. The rules of the agenda prescribe that the employee shall consult the Code of Conduct on the portal of the Ministry of Defence, which determines the principles of ethics, the rights, duties, responsibilities and standards of ethical behaviour, and issues related to the prevention of conflict of interest, the assessment of corruption risks, the form of expression and the reduction of corruption. As well as the possibility for the employee to prevent a conflict of interest from occurring.

Overall, the popularity of the National Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence is high, especially when compared to other state administration institutions. In the public eye, these institutions are seen as having integrity and being honest. Despite this, no tradition of strongly standing against corruption has been recorded since the tenure of Minister Imants Lieģis (2009-2010). In 2009, the current minister Raimonds Bergmanis, held the position of adviser to the State Secretary of the Ministry of Defense with contractual work at the Riga Municipal Police, as well as the post of Senior Official of the Ministry of Defence’s Youth Military Division with the position of member of the Board of the Latvian Olympic Club and co-director of a firm, without obtaining written permission. He, therefore, violated the norms of the Law “On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials”. [2] From November 2014 to July 2015, Bergmanis was a deputy chairman of the Defense, Home Affairs and Corruption Prevention Committee at the Saeima. [3] Besides these entries, no particular link between the Ministry’s officials and corruption/anti-corrutpion topics can be found. This means that the Ministry has almost no commmunication strategy to explain its anti-corruption efforts vis-a-vis the broader public.

According to the government reviewer, however, citizens have access to information and communication opportunities with the Ministry, that helps prevent the risks of corruption. Updated information on participation opportunities, topical issues, different communication options is available on the AM website. Information is regularly published in the public area, in which the defence system’s leading officials indicate significant improvements in corruption risk mitigation measures [4,5,6,7,8,9,10].

There is no evidence indicating that unit commanders and leaders commit to anti-corruption and integrity measures. However, unit commanders and leaders in their communication randomly refer to the framework documents prescribing the military discipline of soldiers and national guardsment, and the procedures providing it. [1] According to the government reviewer, individual unit commanders shall not make public statements, but regularly exchange information with soldiers of their unit on the risks of mounting corruption. This information could not be verified.

There is a commitment to increase transparency and integrity measures by the LAF, demonstrated by internal measures taken place (1). However, the LAF does not often publicize its internal implemented measures (2). For example, the military college’s corruption case in 2017 is one of the publicized cases the LAF investigated (3). Furthermore, the LAF Commander General Joseph Aoun emphasized the meritocracy for the new cadets accepted in the military college in 2017 (4).

Though the LAF does have strict anti-corruption training (1), it has publically expressed its commitment (2) through interviews with CSOs and statements at events and conferences (3). Top-level officers reference and clarify integrity and internal measures in the management of corruption risks (3). For example, the LAF representative at a workshop with LTA and TI UK on anti-corruption reaffirmed the LAF’s commitment to anti-corruption and spoke about the internal measures that the LAF adopts (4). A source confirmed these LAF’s activities and discipline (3). Furthermore, Lebanon’s President Micheal Aoun praised the LAF’s efforts, including combating corruption (5).

Statements by senior military personnel representing the LAF commander are not made often (1). However, a few of the public statement include LAF’s commitment to combatting corruption, integrity, good governance, and transparency concerning international standards (2). On the other hand, publications by senior active military personnel addressing corruption were found on this subject (1), (3), (4).

According to LAF’s regulations, no unit commander has the right to express personal thoughts unless permitted by commandment (5). So any representative of the LAF commander stating the LAF’s commitment to anti-corruption and transparency is saying the official position of the LAF, as their personal opinions are not allowed (6).

The Defence Minister, Chief of Defence, Single Service Chiefs and other members of the National Security System (NSS) clearly declare commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures through the national security system anti-corruption program [1]. Internal commitment is demonstrated by organising seminars for NSS personnel related to corruption issues [2]. There is a department responsible for corruption prevention, entitled General Inspection [3]. However, some of the actions are still externally driven.
Since 2016 when the procurement scandal broke out in the defence sector in relation to the items purchased eight times higher than the market price (the so-called “golden spoons”), and after Lithuania increased the financing of the defence sector to meet the NATO requirement of 2 percent of GDP to be spent on defence, there has been much more attention paid to anti-corruption measures within the defence sector. For instance, the overseeing anti-corruption body – the Special Investigation Service, which is also tasked by the Parliament – made several anti-corruption assessments [4], requiring the Ministry of Defence to have a special section on the website for corruption prevention only; special staff responsible for anti-corruption, requiring training to be arranged, and requiring the procurement to be more stringent as well as transparent. The new anti-corruption programme and the action plan for the defence sector for 2017-2021 [5] contain a number of measures dedicated to anti-corruption, and already several reforms have started in the procurement field of the defence sector. For instance, a central procurement body has been established, as has the Defence Resource Agency (which started to operate in January 2018), and steps have been taken important to increase transparency and effectiveness in procurement [6]. Despite all of these developments, many actions are still externally driven; the military is silent about corruption [7] and anti-corruption training is still not systematic as seen from the website of the Ministry of Defence. The minister is silent about the issue of corruption is his speeches or media interviews. More can and needs to be done with regards to internal communication.

Ministry of Defence officials publicly commit to tackling corruption by providing information on the institutional website, publishing an anticorruption program and plan, and also by discussing papers relating to the defence strategy through anticorruption seminars [1,2,3]. The new Head of the Centralised Procurement Agency for the defence sector often mentions transparency and anti-corruption in his interviews [4]. Despite these developments, many of the actions are still driven by external actors, and the military is silent about corruption [5] and anti-corruption training is still not systematic, as indicated by the Ministry of Defence website. The minister is silent about the issue of corruption is his speeches or media interviews.

Ministry of Defence officials publicly commit to tackling corruption by providing information on the institutional website, publishing an anticorruption program and plan, and also by discussing papers relating to the defence strategy through anticorruption seminars [1,2,3]. Many of the actions are still driven by external actors, and the military is silent about corruption [5] and anti-corruption training is still not systematic, as indicated by the Ministry of Defence website. The minister is silent about the issue of corruption is his speeches or media interviews.

There have been some speeches and press statements by the army to show their commitment to fighting abuse of power in the military. For instance, in 2013, the Chief of Army launched an Integrity Plan aimed at preventing all kinds of corruption, power abuse and irregularities among military personnel. He said “the action plan was drawn up in a comprehensive and pragmatic manner that is capable of strengthening the ATM’s management and administration agenda to achieve the best and excellent level”. [1] In 2019, the new government planned to launch a new Anti-Corruption Plan. According to its Defence Minister, Mohamad Sabu, “the ministry is launching its Anti-Corruption Policy Book which contains policies that were developed to eliminate the problem at Mindef.” [2] His admission shows that for the last few years, the Integrity Plan has failed to contain abuses of power and corruption in the ministry and armed forces. [3] [4]

In his speech during the the Oath Ceremony of the free-corruption campaign in the Defence Ministry in 2017, the then Defence Minister, Hishamuddin Hussein, warned the top brass of the Ministry to avoid corrupt practices or risk being removed from the Ministry. He insisted that the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) would receive a report on any corrupt practices in the Ministry. But his political speeches have been clouded by the land-swap controversy in the Ministry when the new government was installed. The commitment to a corrupt-free Defence Ministry is continued by the current government. The Deputy Defence Minister, in a special interview with the national newspaper, New Straits Times, stressed the current government’s determination to pursue the goal. One of his major focuses is on “big-ticket defence procurement programmes (which) will no longer be vendor-driven.” Accoding to him, “weapons systems acquisitions and similar programmes will be motivated purely by the needs of the three services”. The Ministry has also set up the Governance, Procurement and Finance Investigating Committee (GPFIC) to investigate any wrongdoing in procurement processes. [1] [2]

The initiative at low-level has only been put in place under the current government. The measures were only really communicated effectively during the previous government. [1]

The assessor has found no evidence online that the Ministry of Defence issues internal communications or has adopted clear commitments to tackle corruption within the defence sector [3,4]. The Ministry of Defence does not have its own website, but the armed forces (FAMa) do [1]. Similarly, there are no reports online of the former head of the armed forces, Didier Dacko, who is now the commander of the G5 Sahel Force, referencing the need to reduce corruption in any of his public engagements [2].
However, shortly after succeeding Dacko, the armed forces’ current General Chief of Staff, M’Bemba Moussa Keïta, delivered a speech to Malian troops at bases in Bamako and Kati in which he emphasised the need for soldiers to uphold the army’s values, albeit in vague terms.⁵ He called on all individuals to be mindful of presenting a positive image of the FAMa – both externally and internally – and warned that he would impose penalties for misconduct.⁵ He also underlined that he would ensure that the current recruitment programme would be conducted in a transparent manner.⁵

President IBK, who is also head of the armed forces, promoted 2014, his first full calendar year in office, as ‘the year against corruption’ [2,3]. The government organised a symposium with civil society to discuss solutions in the ‘fight against corruption’ (the January 2014 Forum sur la Corruption et la Délinquance Financière).[2] Yet, 2014 turned into the most damning year for IBK in terms of corruption because of the scandal concerning the 40 billion CFA overspend on a new presidential jet. [1,4] The deal prompted the IMF to suspend aid to the country and provoked an investigation by Mali’s national audit body, as well as a more general assessment by the IMF.[1,4] The scandal highlighted the superficial nature of the president’s public pronouncements.
Since IBK became president in 2013, there have been five different Ministers of Defence: Soumeylou Boubèye Maïga, Ba N’Dao, Tiéman Hubert Coulibaly, Abdoulaye Idrissa Maïga and Tiéna Coulibaly. Searches of online sources have revealed little evidence of the defence ministry or representatives of the ministry making public commitments to combat corruption. Indeed, the second of these defence ministers, Colonel Major Ba N’Dao, was removed from his post in late 2014. He was dismissed shortly after he was directly implicated in the “dubious” award of a public tender for military equipment, worth 20 billion CFA.[5] The contract was awarded in a manner that contravened the existing legal standards for issuing public tenders.[5] Local media outlets alleged that the deal contained a kickback of approximately 4 billion CFA for several “high placed individuals” involved in the awarding of the contract.[5] The assessor has not found more recent evidence.

The one exception in this series is the current Minister of Defence, Tiéna Coulibaly, who was appointed in April 2017. Within a month of his arrival at the MDAC, Coulibaly publicly determined that the army’s main weakness is in recruitment. He said that during the recruitment process, various ministers, MPs and officers present their own lists as to who should be selected.[6] Rather than recruiting soldiers on merit, the current process favours those who are well-connected. As a result, these new soldiers, recruited without competition and “for whom strings have been pulled”, are unfit for fighting because they are simply in the armed forces to draw a salary.[6] Coulibaly has pledged to ensure that from now on soldiers are recruited through a fair and competitive process.[6]

Searches of online sources have not found any evidence of military commanders making public commitments to combat corruption.[1] There is also no mention of tackling corruption as an institutional goal on the FAMa website. Well-informed sources in Bamako told the assessor that it is precisely at this level where the resistance to change and greater transparency is strongest.⁹ ¹⁰
A defence attaché at a foreign embassy in Bamako said that those at the very top of the armed forces, such as the current Chief of the Defence Staff, General Keita, know what needs to be done to reduce corruption and are genuinely committed to achieving this. [2,3] However, the source said that an electronic payments system, for example, would reveal how many soldiers each commander has under their authority and thus curb the opportunities for commanders to pocket the salaries of non-existent, deceased or retired soldiers.[3] Meanwhile, a security governance official said that the current system is “a golden egg for some commanders” and so there is a lot of resistance to the idea of an electronic system from Keita’s subordinates.[4]
Furthermore, a security expert working closely with the Malian armed forces said he was unaware of any unit commander making a public statement about tackling corruption.[5]

It is not common to find information on SEDENA’s commitment to anti-corruption measures. [1] [2] [3] However, some actions demonstrate their internal will, for example, in 2017 said agency trained its middle, senior, and unit managers so that they in turn trained their troops on ethical values as well as transparency, accountability, and combatting corruption. In fact, to be promoted, the military must know the SNA. [4] [5]

The Secretaries of Defence and the Navy have pledged to end corruption, especially in public events, [1] although not firmly. For example, when reviewing the SEDENA press releases for the period 2016-2019, on its official site, [2] [3] only one was found that refers to this topic and it mentions some measures such as the SNA awareness talks, training on issues of integrity, ethics and prevention of conflicts of interest, distribution of the procedures for attention, and receipt of complaints for non-compliance with the code of conduct, etc. [4] [5]

No statements were found by senior SEDENA personnel or by the armed forces in this regard. [1] [2]

The Ministry adopted the Integrity Plan and reports on its implementation, [1][2] in line with legal obligations. [3] However, the Defence Minister, Chief of Defence and Single Service Chiefs never publicly committed to anti-corruption and integrity measures. [3][4][5][6][7][8] According to insiders, the fight against corruption is not communicated as an issue of importance within defence. [9]

Almost no public commitment by the Defence Minister, Chief of Defence, or Single Service Chiefs or the Ministry as an institution to fight against corruption has been reported by media outlets [1][2][3][4][5] or noted by NGO representatives. [6]

On example: “Montenegro continuously contributes to the core values of the Alliance and expresses its commitment to the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which are the key values of building the trustworthy relations with international partners and Allies. One of our lines of efforts towards these objectives is the active cooperation with both regional and international partners, such as CIDS, and participation in NATO Building Integrity Programme. This program promotes good practice and provides practical tools to help NATO member states and partners build integrity and promote transparency in order to reduce the risk of corruption in the defence and security sector. Since CIDS is the NATO Department Head for this discipline, it is a privilege to have the permanent representation of CIDS here in Montenegro and we have prepared an ambitious plan of activities with CIDS for the next two years.“ (paragraph 4 of the Opening remarks addressed by Mr. Ivica Ivanović, former Director General for Defence Policy and Planning Directorate, “Regional conference marking the formal implementation of the Norwegian Grant Agreement on Building Integrity in the Western Balkans”, 15 May 2019, Hotel Avala, Budva, Montenegro) [7]

Aside from the Integrity Plan and the reports on its implementation, [1][2] which the Ministry of Defence adopted like all other public institutions in compliance with the Law on Prevention of Corruption, [3] there has been only one public statement by senior ministry staff about values and conduct [4][5][6][7][8]

There is no defence minister in Morocco, defence matters being directly overseen by the King. Abdellatif Loudiyi has been serving as the delegate minister (secretary of state) to the Prime Minister in charge of the administration of national defence since 2010 upon the King’s orders, keeping his position throughout various governments (1) (2).

No evidence was found of internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption made by Mr Loudiyi or the King on the website of the Ministry of Communication (which acts as the government and the King’s spokesperson). In the absence of a website dedicated to the Moroccan armed forces (or any government support or media offering official information about the Moroccan armed forces), the website of the Ministry of Communication was also screened for internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption made by the Chief of Defence, Single Service Chiefs or the ministry as an institution. No evidence of such communication was found (3).

No evidence of internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption measures made by Ministry of Defence or armed forces senior officials was found in the Moroccan and international press (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12).

This lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of evidence found on the website of Transparency Maroc and statements by the latter denouncing the lack of concrete anti-corruption policies implemented by the Moroccan authorities lead to the conclusion that there is no clear and detailed anti-corruption commitment at the internal level in the Moroccan armed forces. It was neither possible to talk to members of the Moroccan armed forces nor to access military gazettes and internal magazines (13) (14) (15).

There is no defence minister in Morocco, defence matters being directly overseen by the King. Abdellatif Loudiyi has been serving as the delegate minister (secretary of state) to the Prime Minister in charge of the administration of national defence since 2010 upon the King’s orders, keeping his position throughout various governments (1)(2).

No evidence was found of public communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption made by Mr Loudiyi or the King on the website of the Ministry of Communication (which acts as the government and the King’s spokesperson). In the absence of a website dedicated to the Moroccan armed forces (or any government support or media offering official information about the Moroccan armed forces), the website of the Ministry of Communication was also screened for internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption made by the Chief of Defence, Single Service Chiefs or the ministry as an institution. No evidence of such communication was found (3).

No evidence of public communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption measures made by Ministry of Defence or armed forces senior officials was found in the Moroccan and international press (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12).

This lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of evidence found on the website of Transparency Maroc and statements by the latter denouncing the lack of concrete anti-corruption policies implemented by the Moroccan authorities lead to the conclusion that there is no clear and detailed anti-corruption commitment at the internal level in the Moroccan armed forces. It was neither possible to talk to members of the Moroccan armed forces nor to access military gazettes and internal magazines (13)(14)(15).

There is no defence minister in Morocco, defence matters being directly overseen by the King. Abdellatif Loudiyi has been serving as the delegate minister (secretary of state) to the Prime Minister in charge of the administration of national defence since 2010 upon the King’s orders, keeping his position throughout various governments (1)(2).
No statements of commitment by senior officials of the Moroccan Ministry of Defence or armed forces, including the King and Mr Loudiyi were found in the Moroccan and international press (4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12).
No statements of commitment by senior officials of the Moroccan Ministry of Defence or armed forces, including the King and Mr Loudiyi were found on the website of the Ministry of Communication (3).
This lack of evidence, coupled with the lack of evidence found on the website of Transparency Maroc and statements by the latter denouncing the lack of concrete anti-corruption policies implemented by the Moroccan authorities lead to the conclusion that there is no clear and detailed anti-corruption commitment at the internal level in the Moroccan armed forces. It was neither possible to talk to members of the Moroccan armed forces nor to access military gazettes and internal magazines (13)(14)(15).

The Minister of Defence does not talk publicly about corruption risk. Brigadier General Zaw Min Tun, spokesperson for the military, said that the military does not neglect corruption cases and has taken action against corrupt officials through its own internal mechanism [1]. U Aung Kyi, the Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission, said that the Commission cannot take any action against the Ministries of Home Affairs, Border Affairs or Defence [2]. At the National Defense College, professors from foreign and local universities give lectures about corruption to commanders of Tatmadaw. There are also military personals doing thesis about corruption. These lectures are mainly about the comparative study of other countries’ corruption in government sector [3].

According to Brigadier General Zaw Min Tun, corruption risk is not neglected and offenders have been punished through the military’s internal mechanism [1]. In a parliamentary debate on the findings of the Union Auditor General’s Office, military representatives urged the NLD government to improve accountability in order to prevent corruption and minimise the waste of public funds [2].

Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, C-in-C of the Defence Services, gave a speech about becoming dutiful, honest and principled leaders at a Defence Service Academy graduation ceremony on December 7, 2012 [1]. In an interview, a reporter said that he was not aware of top-level officers of the military committing to anti-corruption measures in speeches and media interviews [2].

Notable progress has been made with regard to integrity and anti-corruption in recent years. Former Chief of Defence Tom Middendorp resigned from his position in 2017 citing questions about his integrity and decision-making [1]. This, paired with a succession of controversies in defence, led to the current Chief of Defence Admiral Rob Bauer focussing his maiden speech on the theme of trust in the defence force and how to build it [2]. The new Code of Conduct for Defence, which includes specific anti-corruption and integrity provisions, was released in 2018 [3]. A news release in 2019 described Minister of Defence Ank Bijleveld-Schouten and King Willem Alexander discussing the Code of Conduct and integrity in defence during a public visit to the barracks in Rotterdam [4]. Recently, a letter written on behalf of the Minister of Defence, the Minister for Interior and Kingdom Relations and the Minister for Justice and Security about the government’s commitment to the integrity of the government services and resilience against official corruption was sent to the House of Representatives [5]. The letter declared a commitment to integrity policy and willingness to implement recommendations of reviews occurring in 2021, such as the one by the Anti-Corruption Working Group of the OECD [5]. Official news releases from the Ministry of Defence website detail unfolding (possible) integrity violations and corruption risks. For example, there is information on investigations about the MoD’s relationship with the business community and the COID’s investigation into the culture within the Submarine Service [6,7]. Recently, State Secretary Barbara Visser gave a speech to defence employees about ‘social safety’ and highlighted the need for integrity reporting mechanisms to be more streamlined [8]. Clear communications about integrity by top-level officers and ministers specifically address current shortcomings.

Communications by top-level officers and ministers demonstrate commitment to anti-corruption, integrity and good governance, but these officials generally do not publicly engage with media outlets or civil society on corruption issues and countermeasures. Media outlets rely heavily on official reports and statements from top-level officials, as opposed to frank discussions. However, at a recent event, State Secretary Barbara Visser, a Defence Security and Surveillance Organisation official and a safety manager at the Department of Material Maintenance, publicly discussed ‘social safety’ within defence and the importance of integrity and highlighted the need for integrity reporting mechanisms to be more streamlined and practical [1]. Visser also recently spoke at a symposium to honour the 10th anniversary of the Central Defence Integrity Organisation (COID), highlighting the importance of the work undertaken at the organisation and stressing the importance of integrity for defence employees [2]. The score reflects the fact that public information is available and commitment to anti-corruption is present, but is not communicated through civil society organisations or the media.

Following some scandals within various services/units, social safety (as mentioned by the assessor) has been prioritised. Consequently, there has been a surge in attention towards integrity from this angle, as evidenced by internal publications (service/unit magazines) and speeches at ceremonies for graduations or changes of command [1]. Commitment to these issues is clearly reflected in service publications and communications by senior staff, such as the State Secretary for Defence [2,3].

According to the MoD and NZDF, they regularly circulate internal statements and directives on anti-corruption. Fraud Awareness Week is especially targeted with both the MoD and NZDF (the latter issued by the Vice-Chief of Defence Force who is responsible for auditing functions) releasing statements educating its staff on the guises and dangers of fraud and corruption, and what steps they can take to prevent and detect possible instances, including who they can notify, and, importantly, their level of anonymity under the Protected Disclosure rule [1, 2,]. Other directives issued by the Chief of Defence Force are particularly detailed and provide an exposé of NZDF fraud policy, ethos and values, recovery of losses and write-off from fraudulent activity, roles and responsibilities, reporting channels, action on receipt of information relating to suspected fraud, NZDF privacy policy, and further guidance [3, 4]. In both the MoD and NZDF links between these communications and their Fraud Control Frameworks are made explicit.

The MoD and the NZDF participate in the Five Country Defence Fraud and Anti-corruption Network, with defence partners in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. According to the Government, the participation in global networks with defence partners allows New Zealand to pursue best practice and identify risks and mitigations that will inform and provide a benchmark for our own endeavours. The MoD was scheduled to host this meeting in 2020, however the COVID-19 pandemic has meant this has had to be cancelled [5]. No internal communications by the Minister of Defence extolling the need for anti-corruption measures were supplied by the MoD, however the need for anti-corruption practices, and their placement within Defence’s Five Strategic Priorities, are provided in the MoD’s Statement of Intent 1 July 2018 – 30 June 2022, for which the minister holds responsibility [6]. Likewise, although no statements by the Single Service Chiefs were supplied, the CDF Directives for both 2019 and 2020 contain them, and other senior positions, in the distribution list. It is normal procedure for these messages to have then been forwarded to commands under the Service Chiefs.

Public commitment commences with the FADTC hearings, which provide an opportunity for both the minister and the chief executives of each respective organisation to be publicly questioned on issues of relevance in their area of responsibility. Similarly, the Government believes that, through these hearings, senior leaders regularly commit to anti-corruption and integrity measures. Nonetheless, a keyword search of “corruption”, “fraud”, and “integrity” for the 2020 Vote Defence and Vote Defence Force Hansard Corrected Transcript found no results. Despite this, one of the overall messages from the transcript was the presence of good governance in the New Zealand Defence environment [1, 2]. In July 2020, the CDF made public statements around the need for maintaining the trust and confidence of the New Zealand people through accountability and high standards of professionalism, and promised greater efforts in those areas as a result of reporting inadequacies identified in the Burnham Inquiry [3]. In the same month, the then Minister of Defence delivered a speech to the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs in which he emphasised the increasing need to uphold governance, human rights, rule of law, and transparency [4]. The NZDF also released a statement by Chief of Army, Major-General John Boswell, extolling the values of the NZDF, including the importance of integrity [5].

According to the NZDF, senior leaders commit internally to anti-corruption measures through the promulgation of internal policies, emails, and correspondence. Examples include reminders of public sector duties for civilian staff, the placement of posters around bases and HQ, and regular training sessions to inform and empower staff to “speak up” if they witness any untoward behaviour [1]. Officer Commission ceremonies, often attended by dignitaries, also serves an opportunity to promote integrity and good leadership [2]. In 2018, the NZDF began a comprehensive programme, at the direction of the Vice Chief of Defence Force, to lift the maturity of the NZDF Fraud Control Framework. This programme is was entitled Arai Tinihanga (‘to prevent fraud’). Moreover, the ongoing security awareness campaign encourages all NZDF personnel to report unusual or suspicious behaviours they may observe, including around matters of probity or financial irregularities. There are various resources made available on the Defence Security intranet site. For example a security brochure entitled “It happens here. Managing the Insider Threat to your organisation”, which discuss fraud and corruption risks, too. It builds on the NZDF’s values, which were refreshed in 2019 when a senior leader communications campaign rolled out across the organisation [3, 10]. Service publications such as Air Force News, Navy Today, and Army News, all mention integrity and good governance [4, 5, 6]. From examples found in these service publications it is evident that the Senior Non-commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers perform a vital function in relaying the proper values and ethos from the headquarters to personnel in the units [7, 8]. Explicit mention of corruption is less frequent and a keyword search of “corruption” returned no matches for 2020 issues from all three service magazines. Moreover, a serving NZDF Officer reported that they had limited recollection of on-going or recent initiatives towards management of corruption risks at a unit level [9]. This is not to suggest that there are no corruption management initiatives at the unit level, and in fact as the recorded above this is quite the opposite, but it does suggest that the message could perhaps be better communicated.

Anti-corruption represents one of the pillars of President Mahamadou Issoufous’ Renaissance Programme (2016–2021). Alongside this, there is a broad-based commitment to tackling corruption in other branches of government and widespread awareness of the issue among the public. In July 2018, a public panel to discuss the issue was organised as part of the African Day of Civil Service (Journée africaine de la fonction publique, JAFP). This was attended by the Minister of Civil Service and Administrative Reform, Christelle Kaffa Rakiatou (1). Based on the assessor’s observations, there is little public commitment by the defence minister, chief of defence, or single-service chiefs in support of anti-corruption and integrity measures. For example, in a February 2018 interview with Jeune Afrique, Minister Moutari did not refer to anti-corruption or integrity measures at the Ministry of Defence (4). Also, the website of Niger’s Ministry of Defence (part of which was hacked in July 2018) does not carry news of speeches or media interviews with Minister of Defence Kalla Moutari (or his staff), regarding anti-corruption or integrity measures. Finally, it seems that internal communication by various government bodies, in support of anti-corruption and integrity measures, is superficial.

Public commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures consists of vague statements, with no reference to chiefs or ministers. The assessor did not find evidence that top officials at the Ministry of Defence (including the minister himself) have made recent public statements about anti-corruption.
The Third Chapter of the Presidential Renaissance Programme for 2016-2021 includes fighting against corruption in security and defence institutions as part of improving the overall security governance strategy (1). More broadly, the president, who is also the supreme head of the armed forces, has voiced his commitment to countering corruption in public institutions (2,3). Alongside this, the minister of defence underlined in 2013 the “harmful consequences of corruption for the development of the country” and the need to tackle it in the security and defence sectors (4).

The assessor found no evidence of public commitment (through, for example, speeches, media interviews, or political mandates) to anti-corruption and integrity measures by unit commanders and leaders.
However, on some rare occasions, security forces, related to the Ministry of Interior, have expressed a commitment to combating corruption publicly. For example, in October 2015, the UNODC organised a meeting in Niamey that brought together deputy director generals of the National Police, Judicial Police officers and directors of National Police Schools, as well as heads and representatives of national institutions contributing to the fight against corruption from five Sahel countries (Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Mali, Niger and Senegal) (1). The Director-General of the National Police of Niger, Mr Boubacar Souley, reiterated his “firm commitment to fight tirelessly against corruption in [his] institution.” The Secretary-General of the Interior Ministry declared that corruption “is a major factor of instability and a threat to the peace.” (1) As an outcome of the meeting, participants issued a public statement calling to fight corruption within security institutions (2).

There is an internal commitment to anti-corruption, as evidenced by the direction that all officers should declare their assets. “The head of Nigeria’s army has ordered all officers to declare their assets in a bid to improve transparency” (1). This internal direction was released to the public. Having identified corruption as a strategic issue, the internal correspondence also backs up the commitment as well as internal communication documents (2).

This indicator has not been assigned a score due to insufficient information or evidence.

“Corruption in the Nigerian Army might be the biggest impediment to the fight against Boko Haram insurgency say rank and file soldiers” (1). Lower ranked officers continued to allege that despite the public statements on corruption within the army, supplies are still not available. This has serious operational implications for serving soldiers.

Following the enactment of the 2016 Integrity Plan, there is a much clearer internal commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures within the defence institutions. The plan outlines the fight against corruption and encourages a culture of integrity in the defence sector [1]. In January 2018, the Ministry of Defence, supported by the United Kingdom Defence Academy, held a training to build integrity amongst the Ministry of Defence and Army Chiefs of Departments, as well as for other high ranking defence officials [2]. In discussions and interviews, with the Chiefs of Departments within the defence sector expressed a high level of satisfaction regarding these integrity policies and the relevant training. These policies, alongside increased transparency within the defence sector, highlights how integrity measures are prevalent at all levels of the defence sector.

The shift towards increased integrity and transparency is echoed in the defence sector’s approach to public discourse. In January 2018, the Minister of Defence, Radmila Sekerinska, instigated a Rulebook on Transparency in which the Ministry committed itself to maximum transparency towards the public [1]. In addition, the enactment of the Ministry of Defence Strategic Defence Review in June 2018 emphasised a focus on accountability, transparency and zero tolerance of corruption [2]. All this, including the publication on the Ministry of Defence’s website of a number of sensitive documents such as the the Ministry of Defence’s Budget, public procurements and salaries of top officials demonstrates the efforts of the defence sector in opening up to the public and encouraging transparency. Ministry of Defence officials, and particularly the Minister, underline this new integrity culture when addressing the public. For instance, at the launch of the integrity training, the Minister highlighted how building integrity and fighting corruption was essential [3]. In an interview in February 2018, she publicly criticised the previous lack of transparency within the Ministry of Defence and emphasised the new openness and accountability measures in the defence sector [4]. In another interview, she also emphasised the new policies of transparency and integrity in the defence sector as the only way to secure membership within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) [5]. Despite her repeatedly of communicating this message of transparency, the measures in place were still mentioned in a summary format rather than explained in detail. Furthermore, the Minister is not always fully supported by other Ministry of Defence officials, especially by those within the Army. Despite earning the 2017 media award for Transparency and Cooperation with the Media [6], the Army Chief of Staff or other Army employees have never publicly communicated anti-corruption or integrity measures [7].

Publications relating to the defence service echo the new integrity policy in the defence sector [1]. However, this new policy is more often mentioned in editorial notes rather than explicitly in statements by senior Ministry of Defence staff or Army officers [2]. Despite general support for integrity in the Ministry of Defence and the Army, no explicit statements relating to the integrity of the defence sector are publicly available. Unit commanders do not have a mandate to make public statements, except for statements related to unit missions or daily unit activities, and these statements can be made only after consultation with the Public Information Office [3]. There is therefore a lack of public statement from senior Ministry of Defence and Army officials, except those coming directly from the Minister.

There is an evident internal commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures in the Norwegian defence sector. This was demonstrated by the establishment of the Centre for Integrity in the Defence Sector (CIDS) in 2012 [1]. The CIDS’ mission is to “promote good governance and professional integrity in the defence sector.” Another example is an ongoing anti-corruption programme initiated by the Norwegian Armed Forces in close collaboration with the Norwegian division of Transparency International [2]. Moreover, in 2011 the Ministry of Defence established an Ethical Council for the Defence Sector to “strengthen the ethical awareness and reflection of defence employees” [3]. However, internal messaging on anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Defence Minister, Chief of Defence and other top officials has been fairly infrequent in recent years. Their internal communication (demonstrated for example in annual addresses) has focused on security and defence issues, military operating capability, military education reform and annual budget issues [4, 5, 6].Overall, the current practices fulfil the standard proactive anti-corruption measures, and occasional communications about integrity but the internal emphasis from the top could be stronger, better and more frequent.

In recent years, neither top level officers nor the minister have spoken publicly about anti-corruption. An example of a conference statement is the keynote speech of the Norwegian Minister of Defence at the NATO Building Integrity Discipline Conference in June 2015 [1]. In it, the minister stressed Norway’s commitment to integrity and anti-corruption measures in defence, as well as to tackling corruption as a threat to international security.

Statements on integrity and anti-corruption from senior ministry staff and senior armed forces officers have not been frequent. Most communication seems to focus on administrative and annual budget issues [1]. One recent example comes from 2018, when Anne Elisabeth Langfoss (Legal Director from the Norwegian Defence Logistics Organisation) participated in a panel on corruption in the public sector at the Anti-corruption Conference organised by the Norwegian division of Transparency International [2, 3]. Langfoss has been responsible for coordinating anti-corruption work in the Norwegian Defence Logistics Organisation. Another example is the presentation given by Morten Tiller (National Armaments Director from the Ministry of Defence) at the seminar on ethics in the defence sector that was held in March 2017 [4]. While it is difficult to find publicly available documentation of internal communication on integrity and management of corruption risks, and statements by senior ministry staff and senior officers primarily take place within thematic conferences, the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence are clearly committed to anti-corruption and integrity measures.

According to a high-rank officer within the Omani army, there are no internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption by high-ranking Defence and Security officials or the Ministry of Defence (1), (2). Another officer suggests that there are no clear communication channels between branches within the Ministry of Defence, such as the Royal Armed Forces and Royal Police with a focus on corruption and integrity (3), (4), (5). Military courts which address issues of corruption in the defence and security forces have no communication outlets or explicit values of accountability to integrity and anti-corruption (6). Sayyid Badr bin Saud bin Harib al Busaidi, the minister responsible for Defence Affairs is the sole high-ranking senior official named in the Ministry of Defence, there is no public information on structures within the Ministry, or roles equivalent to Chief of Defence or Single Service Chiefs (3).

We could not find a public commitment by the Ministry of Defence or high‐ranking Defence or Security
officials around issues of anticorruption or integrity (1). Also, we did not identify media interviews
granted by any high‐ranking MoD officials on anticorrup?on (2,3). According to our sources, they claim that the army and MoD do not feel that corruption is a pressing issue and therefore, they ignore it (4), (5). The only public announcements concerning corruption are made by the sultan through royal decrees, the latest of which was in 2011, the Law for the Protection of Public Funds and Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest (6). Efforts made by the sultan to address corruption, though without explicit reference to defence and security, are key given he holds the position of head of the state, government, Minister of Defence and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (7), (8). We did not find evidence of high‐ranking officials in the Ministry of Defence publicly commiting to anticorruption or integrity in relation to their work.

There are no statements by senior Ministry of Defence or armed forces staff committing to integrity and anti-corruption measures. As discussed above, in the two prior sub-indicators, there is little information regarding structures within the ministry including communication and accountability channels (1). No speeches, media interviews, or endorsements of political mandates were found in institutional or media outlets (2), (3). The Ministry of Defence procedures around tenders and auditing are not published, neither are employees in positions of power within the ministry named on the website apart from Sayyid Badr bin Saud bin Harib al Busaidi, the minister responsible for Defence Affairs (4). No social media accounts of the Ministry of Defence were found, and the news section on the Ministry website is not regularly updated; it contains no news items relating to anti-corruption and integrity measures.

It is very rare that internal communications within the national forces or the security agencies, about integrity and corruption practices happens. The heads of the NF and security apparatuses rarely admit that there is a need for communication on this issue (1).

As a significant number of senior commanders are politically engaged or are indeed members of the executive branch, sometimes they issue statements during interviews where they assert their commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures (1). For example, according to several journalists, the head of the Civil Police during an AMAN conference on corruption and security forces made this type of statement (2).

There are few statements of commitment by senior commanders on anti-corruption measures. These rare statements, when made, may come from commanders who have a political role (1), (2). For example, the head of intelligence, as a member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, expressed his efforts against corruption in general terms. There is a concern that these statements are a cliche of political manoeuvering efforts to gain more power among the public (3).

There is an internal willingness to carry out processes, as demonstrated by internal strategic communications such as the Defence Department’s official newsletter; in it, the Defence Secretary emphasised the importance of the Philippine Defence Transformation Roadmap 2028 in eliminating opportunities for graft and corruption [1, 2]. During his first flag raising ceremony as chief-of-staff of the Armed Forces in April 2018, Lt. General Carlito Galvez warned the military against corruption or risk dismissal from duty. Further, he ordered the Office of the Inspector General to investigate anomalies within the ranks [3]. A few months later, he revealed in a press conference that they Armed Forces led by the intelligence service had been conducting “discreet investigation” and found several irregularities in the military’s health service command [4].

Commitment to anti-corruption is publicly demonstrated via speeches in oath-taking events and conferences as well as via interviews with the media. The Defence Secretary, AFP Chief, and Navy Commander have backed the Executive’s anti-corruption campaign and have committed to streamlining the procurement process to mitigate corruption risks [1, 2, 3, 4]. Integrity and governance are mentioned in public statements, along with occasional references to specific initiatives [5, 6].

There is a visible commitment on conduct and accountability reflected in statements, for example in change of command ceremonies, but not to the extent that integrity measures or management of risks are explicitly referenced [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

For many years within the framework of the Ministry of National Defence, there was an Office for Anticorruption Procedures, an institution which developed anticorruption mechanisms tailored to the needs of the ministry. An internal communication example showing interest in the subject of anti-corruption is the anti-crisis conference organized by the Military Police in 2017 [1]. However, in 2018 the Anti-Corruption Procedures Bureau was abolished and its tasks and staff were transferred to one of the newly established unit in the Office of the Minister of National Defence [2]. This can be perceived as a downgrading of their commitment to anti-corruption and integrity, even if the tasks of the unit were mainly conserved.

The management of the Ministry of National Defence used to pay attention to the need to fight corruption in public statements. For example, in 2016, the Ministry of National Defence announced the establishment of a “Prevention program in the field of counteracting corruption in the Ministry of National Defence for 2016-2019 ” [1, 2]. In one of the interviews, the MoND minister recognized that corruption is one of the causes of the poor condition of the army [3]. Next defence minister (since 2018) in January 2020 publicly congratulated law enforcement agencies, which arrested three corrupted high rank officers. He stated that “corruption is ruining”. [4]

It is difficult to find official statements on combating corruption made at the command level in the army. Nevertheless, awareness of the problem exists and is demonstrated by the organization of anti-corruption training. In 2017, the military police organised training that focused on the field of anti-corruption within the Support Inspectorate. This was attended by the command level and management staff of military units carrying out tasks related to the management of property and military equipment [1]. Training is also being provided by the military police in a frame of the “Prevention program in the field of counteracting corruption in the Ministry of National Defence for 2016-2019”, extended for 2020. [2]

There is little evidence of internal communications with regard to anti-corruption and integrity in the available service publications of the Navy and Air Force for the period under consideration [1] [2]. An issue of the Army service publication is dedicated to financial audits in which some issues of audit and control are mentioned, but there’s no specific focus on anti-corruption [3]. While the previous Minister of Defence mentioned transparency in seven public speeches, the current (as of June 2021) mentions the term four times as per the available registry [4]. Service chiefs and the joint chief do not mention anti-corruption, integrity or transparency in existing documents. Interview requests with branch chiefs were declined on October 8th, 2020 (Army), October 13th, 2020 (Air Force), and October 21st, 2020 (Navy). The Office of the Minister of Defence initially replied and inquired on specific questions, but did not respond to questions sent via email. The Secretariat-General of the Ministry of Defence did not respond to questions sent via email.

There is evidence of public commitment by the minister of defence with regards to openness to civil society [1] and transparency [2, 3], including the announcement of a defence transparency portal which is now online [4], even though it is current (as of March 2021) data supply ends in 2016. However, a further indication of apparent public commitment by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is apparent in Simplex (a public administration modernisation programme) policies, which included the abovementioned data portal and two others [5, 6] which attempt to close the gap between defence institutions and the wider public. However, no measurable risk management or anti-corruption policies have been announced or put in place.

There is no evidence of public commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures in published public speeches by branch chiefs [7, 8]. The Air Force and the Joint Chief of Staff do not publish speeches.

There is not enough information to score this indicator because not enough sources within the MoD or branches were open to an interview or questionnaire. Interview requests with branch chiefs were declined on October 8th 2020 (Army), October 13th 2020 (Air Force) and October 21st 2020 (Navy).

There is no evidence of any internal communications around commitment to integrity and anti-corruption between chiefs/ministers. There is also no transparency or any information available in relation to internal communications within the defence sector to combat corruption or related to any other defence issues. There is no evidence that the defence sector has internal processes and communications to discuss corruption within its bodies. Although there is no evidence of communications around corruption within the defence sector, the Emir issued Decree No. 6 (2015), aiming to restructure the Administrative Control and Transparency Authority (ACTA), and to increase penalties for corrupt officials. In 2016, another decree was issued to guarantee the State’s Audit Bureau more financial authority and independence [1,2]. In addition to that, Qatar has ratified the UN Convention for Combating Corruption. A National Committee for Integrity and Transparency was established in 2007, through Emiri Decree No. 84, and is currently supervised by the chairman of the State’s Audit Bureau. Furthermore, Law 11/2004 of the Qatari Penal Code focuses on crimes related to corruption and bribery [3]. Qatar also established the Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Centre on November 25, 2012 in Doha, in collaboration with the United Nations [4]. These initiatives show Qatar’s commitment to countering corruption within the government, however, none of these regulations apply to the defence sector. There is no evidence of any internal communications about the commitment to integrity and anti-corruption specifically within defence institutions, despite the efforts Qatar has exerted to countering corruption in the country more generally [5]. According to our sources, there is no internal communication with regards to corruption. There are, however, internal units (ethical guidance units) that sporadically send communications concerning ethical and religious commitments, but not about. [6,7,8]

As mentioned in the previous sub-indicator, officials within the government have made efforts and expressed commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures, however, this has not been the case in relation to defence. None of the public statements and commitments made by Qatari officials make any reference to the defence sector. For example, Ibrahim Ali Abel, Director of the Transparency Department, and the Administrative Control and Transparency Authority of the Qatar Government, attended the General Assembly meeting to discuss the battle against corruption. [1] In the meeting, the Qatari representative talked about the efforts Qatar is exerting to promote international instruments to combat corruption on all levels. He added that Qatar is ‘focusing on building fair systems of justice in addition to countering organised crime and terrorism. In cooperation with UNODC, it aimed to promote the capacity of States by boosting its own judicial integrity’. Representatives from the Administrative Control and Transparency Authority (ACTA) and the State Audit Bureau have participated in workshops to inform OECD public governance reviews. [2,3,4] However, none of these reviews stated that public commitments relate to the defence sector, and none of these statements were made by chief or ministers within defence. There is no public commitment stated by defence personnel around building integrity and countering corruption within the defence sector itself. There have not been any cases of official public commitment by any of the senior army officers or commanders. [5,6]

There is no stated commitment on behalf of any defence personnel regarding building integrity and countering corruption within the sector. [1,2] Research showed that many Qatari government representatives, none of which are unit commanders or leaders, have committed to countering corruption in the country. Government officials making these statements were mostly representatives of the State’s Audit Bureau and the Administrative Control and Transparency Authority and the General Attorney. These statements mostly appear on media outlets such as Gulf Times, Doha News and The Peninsula. A recent meeting between the Qatari General Attorney-Ali Al Marri, chairman of the Rule of Law and Anti-corruption Centre (ROLAAC), the UN Under Secretary General, and the Executive Director of UNODC, took place with the aim of discussing ways and means to improve transparency and integrity at regional and global levels [3]. Whereas these examples show public commitment to countering corruption in the country, none of these is specifically relevant to the defence sector.

The MoD Collegium meetings, which are held on a monthly basis, serve as the main platform for internal communitcation [1]. The Minister sums up achievements, announces plans, delivers reports about the implementation of strategies, announces presidential orders, highlights the progress status of social guarantees, etc. [2]. However, the analysis of 11 publicly available collegium reports dated 2018 only provided one indirect reference to the MoD’s anti-corruption commitments. During the December meeting, the formation of a unified information system for GOZ payments was announced [3].

There are two protocol reports on anti-corruption activities available on the MoD website. The first is the report on the implementation of anti-corruption decisions by the MoD Anti-Corruption Council [4]. The second is the news about a MoD member participating in the presidential seminar on anti-corruption practices in federal agencies [5].

The official MoD website provides some random reports on anti-corruption measures, such as the report on the implementation of federal anti-corruption measures [1]. When it comes to media or public announcements, the MoD officials’ commitments are limited to references to presidential orders or national anti-corruption strategy. When the media publishes investigations into grand corruption in the MoD, the Ministry’s representatives either ignore or disrespect the findings [2]. When investigation agencies arrest high-ranking MoD officials on corruption charges, there are never any official comments from the MoD [3].

I would therefore suggest that the public commitment to anti-corruption is of a superficial nature. No individual chief of the MoD has addressed anti-corruption commitments or responded to the corruption reports.

There are no anti-corruption statements by senior Ministry staff or armed forces officers. The MoD website provides reports about random anti-corruption events within the army and its structures. For example, there are random ‘anti-corruption month’ campaigns that aim to inform military and civil army employees about anti-corruption priorities [1]. There is also some information about a few anti-corruption lectures or themed painting competitions in cadet schools [2,3].

According to our sources, there is very little anti-corruption communication and commitment through official channels. According to one source, in the last five years, there was only one internal communication with a focus on anti-corruption measures and statement from senior officials. However, there are many recent statements by the crown prince (1), (2). King Salman and more notably his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s de facto leader who also serves as minister of defence, in addition to several other senior roles, have ostensibly made fighting corruption one of the main pillars of his Vision 2030 reform programme, a broad series of reforms that include an overhaul of the Saudi economy, society and bureaucracy (3). This has extended to the defence ministry. However, the researcher found no publicly available information on the internal communications within the Ministry of Defence regarding these measures, nor is there evidence of internal commitment to carry out anti-corruption and integrity processes.

According to our sources, there is a public commitment from the senior leadership, but not the military leadership. The commander in chief, who happens to be the crown prince is the only leader who has issued many public statements against corruption; however, these commitments are not followed by serious measures that are not politically motivated against the opposition (1), (2).

The crown prince has made a large number of public statements and instituted measures to tackle corruption, including in the defence industry (3). Notably, in November 2017, Mohammed bin Salman arrested the commander of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG), Miteb bin Abdullah, son of former King Abdullah, as part of a widespread anti-corruption sweep. This sweep was spearheaded by a newly-formed anti-corruption committee led by the crown prince, with authority to investigate, arrest, issue travel bans and freeze the assets of those it found to be corrupt (4). Other senior officials in the defence industry were also targeted, including 14 retired military officers who previously served in the Ministry of Defence, as well as two retired SANG officers, on suspicion of involvement in financial contracts which were allegedly corrupt (5).

That being said, this was an ad hoc measure rather than a formalized anti-corruption policy. Furthermore, several analysts and observers have suggested that the anti-corruption crackdown represented a purge of the crown prince’s political enemies and his aim to consolidate his power rather than a meaningful attempt to combat corruption and build integrity in the country’s institutions (6), (7). Given the top-down nature of these initiatives and the lack of transparency regarding the internal processes to battle corruption in the sector, it is unclear to what extent such measures are genuine or how far-reaching they are in reality.

According to our sources, the only person who issues such statement is the crown prince. Except for Crown Prince and Minister of Defence Mohammed bin Salman, there are no statements from senior MoD or armed forces staff making references or statements in support of anti-corruption measures in the sector (1), (2), (3).

Internal commitment to tackling corruption risks within the MoD can be observed in the regular adoption of annual integrity building plans for 13 institutions of the defence system since 2013 [1]. However, taking into account that a series of measures are repeated each year, as well as that certain activity is later evaluated as obsolete in the realisation reports, the impression is that integrity plans are rather a result of legal obligation fulfilment [2] than of a commitment to combating corruption in the defence system.

Commitment to integrity building in public communications depends to a great extent on the personal engagement of the minister and the MoD and SAF staff at the top level. During the mandate of the previous minister (March 2016 – June 2017), the MoD and SAF representatives and the minister himself have participated in different public events and expressed interest in tackling corruption risks within the defence system, including the analysis and dissemination results of the Transparency International Anti-corruption Index 2015 [1, 2, 3]. The minister has also expressed interest in greater cooperation with the Anti-corruption Agency to enhance integrity building within the MoD [4]. According to the MoD public commitment has also been evident during Minister Vulin’s tenure (June 2017 to date), when representatives of the Ministry, the Serbian Armed Forces and the Minister himself participated in various public events and expressed interest in addressing corruption within the defence system, including analysis and dissemination of results of the International Transparency Corruption Index [5].

The MoD and SAF representatives have continued to participate in integrity building activities and public events. However, commitment comes down to occasional individual efforts rather than a systematic engagement in integrity building promotion [1]. The acting assistant minister for defence policy, for instance, spoke at a NATO integrity building conference in Washington in September 2017 [2]. Overall, there are very few declarations and discussions that take place on the unit level [3, 4].

Besides being enshrined in policy by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), and other government agencies [1, 2] civilian and military leadership have regularly stated their commitment to combating corruption via regular internal announcements, speeches, and articles, which have been reported in the public domain [3, 4]. There is a sustained effort to recognise exemplary behaviour by officers and non-commissioned officers, who are, in turn, expected to lead by example in their respective units and departments [5, 6].

Apart from interviews and public statements by top leaders [1, 2] Singapore’s public sector attributes a lot of emphasis to integrity (which forms part of its official slogan) and this is regularly reaffirmed in official public discourse by the defence minister himself [3].

Commitment to practice good fiscal governance in procurement and uphold honesty and integrity within the uniformed services has been reiterated consistently by top MINDEF and Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) officials at public events, media engagements, and service publications [1, 2]. Independent analysis has also noted an organisation culture that has been conditioned to abhor any form of abuse and corruption [3].

There are internal communications made available to the public wherein top-level Defence Ministry officials commit to maintaining integrity and anti-corruption measures, albeit peripherally. The Defence Forces Services Commission Annual Report for 2018 noted the objectives of reporting instances of corruption and maintaining their work with integrity [1, 2].

High-level commanders and ministers do publicly commend instances where corruption and fraud are uncovered and successfully investigated but do not generally mention specific measures relating to them. A large component of this work is conducted by the Directorate Anti-Corruption and Anti-Fraud (DACAF). Public reports indicate that DACAF is well-supported by the Chief of the SANDF, General Solly Shoke. Shoke has made the “elimination” of corruption one of his stated objectives [1].
Although the national government does disseminate general messages on combating corruption, this is not commonly the case for the South African National Defence Force (SANDF).

The SANDF and Department of Defence regularly issue press releases and statements committing to anti-corruption or integrity measures, These are not, however, particularly detailed nor do they include information on specific measures taken (with rare exception) [1]. Commitments against corruption are generally made through Defence Intelligence or specific monitoring members on a case by case basis. There is no common practice for this within the SANDF [2].

While there is an internal willingness to tackle corruption and build integrity declared by the Defence Minister, it is difficult to say that internal messaging is consistent across all defence establishments. This research reviewed inaugural addresses of the Defence Minister, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army and Air Force, who have been in power since 2018 or 2019. It shows that Defence Minister Chung Kyung-doo emphasised in his inaugural address that he will enhance integrity in the defence sector. [1] There is a clear policy implementation which reflects the Minister’s willingness to tackle corruption. In March 2019, “The Integrity Defence Public-Private Consultation” was launched to develop anti-corruption policy with the Deputy Minister of National Defence, senior procurement officers, as well as civil society organisations. [2] Top officers signed a pledge of integrity as part of the consultation plan. However, it is not very consistent as meetings are sporadic. Unlike the Defence Minister, it seems that Joint Chiefs of Staff and Single Service Chiefs are likely to focus on building a strong operation system through public statements, rather than addressing tackling corruption in the field. After reviewing their inaugural addresses made in 2018, a commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures have not been identified. [3] [4] [5] While there has been internal willingness to fight corruption shown by public statements of top-level military personnel, it is difficult to find active internal communications directly by officers. [6]

As mentioned in Q34A, commitments to anti-corruption measures have been publicly made by the Defence Minister. This is aligned with policy priorities that current President Moon Jae-in has emphasised. As part of the new intervention to tackle corruption, “the Anti-corruption Policy Council” was established in September 2017. It is led by the President regularly and the latest meeting occurred in June 2019. Government ministers, including the Defence Minister, attend the meeting and publicly speak about how to reduce the level of corruption in general. [1] [2] In November 2017, the former Defence Minister Song Young-moo had a meeting with former Programme Director for Transparency International Defence and Security, Katherine Dixon, in Seoul. During the meeting, he publicly addressed the willingness to join the programme run by TI as part of South Korean anti-corruption policy, but it did not proceed in practice. [3]

There is evidence of statements on tackling corruption in the defence sector made by senior ministry staff and senior armed forces officers. In October 2018, the Deputy Minister of National Defence stated that “enhancing integrity and transparency in the defence sector is inevitable”, during the ceremony for newly appointed members for the Integrity Ombudsman within the MND. [1] However, it is difficult to identify unit commanders demonstrating the anti-corruption commitment at open events or conferences.

There is too considerable a lack of information and publicly available literature on the issue of internal army communications on corruption to enable an assessment. As such, this indicator is marked ‘Not Enough Information’.

Publicly, there is insufficient to non-existent commitment to anti-corruption measures. [1] [2] [3] Public events like Veterans’ Day, which falls on May 16 every year, offer ample opportunity for articulating major policy positions on critical issues like corruption. Instead, the prevailing evidence over the years suggests that army leaders, like the Chief of Defence Forces, focus mostly (in their speeches) on the significance of the occasion and types of medals awarded to soldiers. In 2018, for instance, Defence Minister Kuol Manyang used the occasion to laud the achievements of the President who was awarded seven medals, while on the other hand, the Chief of defence staff, Gabriel Jok Riak, stressed the army’s commitment to a ceasefire with rebel troops. [4] Veterans Day 2020 was no different; the awarding of medals was a key focus of the event. Elsewhere, newly appointed army chief, Gen. JJ Okot, in two major TV interviews, focused his priorities mostly on army reform. [5] [6] He did not make one explicit reference to corruption in either interview, arguing that in general, the problems of the army can be attributed to lack of peace and stability in the country.

There is insufficient information to score this indicator; as such, it is marked ‘Not Enough Information’. Media coverage dedicated to covering change of command ceremonies in South Sudan’s 8 divisions across the country, is a key factor in the dearth of information on this issue. Furthermore, the military’s public relations unit does not have a social media presence to showcase such information.

The very recent Instruction 23/2020 of the Secretary of Defence, on the Ethical Code and Code of Conduct of Personnel Related to Purchasing, which affects both military and civilian staff in the purchasing areas of the Ministry of Defence, is probably the clearest example of a change of commitment regarding anticorruption. This instruction, mandatory in character, comprehensively covers aspects related to bribery, gifts, and any benefit. It also applies to conflicts of interest, and provides specific guidance on how to proceed in the communication of events “that are not constitutive of fault and crime” [1]. The instruction shows a willingness to disseminate anti-corruption measures and an aim of sensitisation in this sense. However, the approval of the instruction has not been the object of widespread media coverage and top authorities in the defence sector have not viewed this new code of conduct as a spectacular improvement. This initiative is very recent and the previous situation was not characterised by anti-corruption measures, commitments, or public statements.

Public statements by authorities regarding corruption or abuse within the armed forces are very rare, and exceptions are always related to scandals covered by the media (situations that make public declarations unavoidable). But ministers of defence and other top leaders have justified, downplayed, and even denied corruption and abuse; and have accused whistleblowers and other people who denounced corruption or abuse as anti-patriotic or as damaging to the image of the armed forces [1]. Some of the most significant examples are related to sexual abuse [2, 3].

As stated before, Instruction 23/2020 of the Secretary of Defence, on the Ethical Code and Code of Conduct of Personnel Related to Purchasing [1], is expected to produce an increase of public statements on anti-corruption. However, as the instruction is very recent, its real impact has yet to be seen. So far, public commitment via statements from senior ministry staff and senior armed forces officers is unheard of, or at least it is not reflected in the media and public communication. This commitment is also not known to be addressed at unit parades, graduation ceremonies, or similar events, or in writing through service publications. The 23/2020 Instruction is publicly available and is on the Ministry of Defence website [2]. It is also disseminated through a video in Youtube [3], and content is made mandatory in contracts [4], communicated in specialised sectors [5], and, despite not in a widespread manner, has been covered in certain general media outlets [6].

A review of the websites of the Ministries of Defence and Interior did not yield any evidence of internal communications about civilian or military leaders’ commitment to integrity and anti-corruption [1,2].

The head and deputy head of Sudan’s Sovereign Council are military figures who head the SAF and the RSF respectively. The head of the Empowerment Removal and Anti-Corruption Committee is also a Lt. General in the SAF. While these senior leaders might make public pronouncements about disempowering former regime officials and recapturing control of resources that the latter stole while in office [1,2,3], they make no such pronouncements about the need to improve integrity and fight corruption in the current defence and security services. In August 2020, SAF Commanding General and head of the transitional Sovereignty Council gave a speech to senior officers at the Army Command in which he accused unnamed people or entities of ‘working to acquire goods, property and assets of SAF companies and investments for themselves’. He denied that military-owned companies’ opaque monopolies on numerous industries manipulate the economy or are major contributors to the dismal state of the economy, instead blaming ministries for failing to solve the economic problems [4]. In a separate speech to troops in Omdurman, he said that (unnamed) parties are trying to ‘kidnap the revolution and its youth… [and] dismantle the army and its economic companies in order to break up the country’ [5].

Lt. Gen. Yasir El Ata, who heads the Empowerment Elimination, Anti-Corruption and Funds Recovery Committee, also defended SAF companies as being ‘subject to public reviews, taxes and the Customs Law’ and claimed – probably with the intention of implicating his deputy’s RSF forces – that the state should be focussing its efforts on acquiring some 200 companies that are not subject to the same laws and processes [4]. Resistance Committees, however, found Burhan’s attempt to divert attention away from SAF companies suspicious, believing that the SAF is trying to maintain a separate parallel economy to the detriment of the national economy and welfare; the Resistance Committees and the Sudanese Professionals Association reinvigorated calls for military-owned companies to be brought under civilian control. Although not directly stated, the implication is that civil society will not rest until militarised actors give up their ability to use state institutions as cash cows that benefit them more than they benefit society [5]. There is a lack of evidence that the Minister of Defence, the Chief of Defence, the Single Service Chiefs or the Ministry of Defence as an institution have made any statements committing to anti-corruption or integrity measures relevant to current and forthcoming ministry and military activities.

No evidence could be found on the websites operated by Sudan’s Ministries of Defence or Interior [1,2] – or in news media on the internet – of any statements by senior ministry personnel or senior armed forces officers voicing their commitment to upholding integrity and countering corruption in the public defence and security sectors.

No evidence could be found that the defence minister or the ministry as an institution have shown explicit commitment to anti-corruption in their internal communications during the studied time period. The Swedish Armed Forces (SAF), however, address the issue of ‘irregularities’ (including corruption, bribes, theft, fraud and other examples) in an interal strategy document [1]. This stance applies generically to all government agencies under the ministry of defence, and all agencies should thus follow similar strategy documents outlining the same principle.

The government office has recently published a general statement on how it intends to ‘strengthen anti-corruption work’ by developing a national ‘action plan’ [1]. It is stated here that ‘although Sweden appears to be a country free of corruption in international assessements, there are still issues and challenges’, and that in Sweden corruption may ‘take on different and sometimes more concealed forms than in other countries, such as friendship corruption’. The statement does not address any specific political sectors like defence. The defence minister himself seems to have made no public commitment to anti-corruption during the studied time period. In a parliamentiary session, when questioned by the opposition on mechanisms against corruption in the defence sector, he rather stressed that anti-corruption training was the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration Agency’s (FMV) responsibilty [2]. Moreover, the media has exposed corrupt behaviour in the defence minister’s closest staff, forcing his press secretary to resign [3]. An Uppsala University professor of law called the press secretary’s multiple connections to the private sector a ‘clear conflict of interest’ [4] (see also Q33B).

No clear statements of commitment by senior ministry of defence staff could be identified from the studied time period [1]. The armed forces have addressed corruption only once in the same period; namely, in the 2019 annual report [2] in a short section on how to ‘prevent corruption and conflict of interest’ [2]. Here, the word ‘corruption’ is used only in the heading, but not elsewhere in the report. The SAF do not mention corruption anywhere on their website [3].

The most recent three ministers of defence were Ueli Maurer (2009-2015), Guy Parmelin (2016-2018) and currently Viola Amherd (2019-) [1]. Mr. Maurer’s anti-corruption focus was mainly concentrated in sports which is part of the portfolio of the person heading the DDPS [2]. The recent expenses scandals within the Swiss military fall under his tenure as minister [3, 4, 5]. Mr. Parmelin had the reputation of trying to curb some problematic practices. For example, he insisted on signed declarations of the absence of a conflict of interest in relation to the procurement process of new fighter jets [6, 7]. He also inherited the resolution of the expenses scandal and ordered internal reports on expenses scandals [3, 5]. Although he defended the behaviour as legal, he promised a change of culture [8]. It was in the wake of the scandal and under Mr. Parmelin that the head of the army admitted mistakes while still defending the expense practices as legal but morally wrong [9]. He also defended the audit report by the Swiss Federal Audit Office on compliance at RUAG. The report found a high reputational risk in terms of corruption and was rejected by RUAG [10]. The new Minister of Defence Ms. Amherd, was appointed in 2019. She appears to signal a stricter approach too. She asked for an internal audit report on sponsoring within the DDPS [11] as well as an investigation on problematic offset deals for the procurement of new fighter jets [12]. In the latter case, she managed to convince parliament to not insist on 100% of offset deals [13]. However, a more muddled signal was given after 2019 newspaper reports uncovered that a pilot and high ranking officer was allegedly hired by Saab to lobby for the Gripen fighter jet Switzerland was considering buying. The officer was released of his duties as spokesperson of the “Patrouille Suisse” but kept his role as Head of Special Staff Communication (Chef Fachstab Kommunikation) as a member of the militia [14]. The Guidelines in form of a brochure on compliance which gives instructions on questions of integrity, code of conduct and anti-corruption measure is introduced with a forward of the Chief of the Armed Forces (“Chef der Armee) emphasizing the reputational importance of individual responsibility and integrity [15].

Ueli Maurer was minister of defence and sport during the World Football Federation (FIFA) corruption scandal. He publicly stated that “corruption and bribery need also to be punished in sports” [1]. No similar public statement could be found with regards to the military and is therefore unlikely to have been repeated systematically. His successor Guy Parmelin had to deal with an expenses scandal. He, as well as the head of the army, defended the behaviour as legal but morally wrong [2, 3]. He also publicly defended the audit report by the Swiss Federal Audit Office on compliance at RUAG. The report found a high reputational risk in terms of corruption and was rejected by RUAG [4]. With commissioning an internal audit report on sponsoring with the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) Viola Amherd in office since 2019 sent an early signal of transparency. She asked for an internal audit report on sponsoring within the DDPS [5] as well as an investigation on problematic offset deals for the procurement of new fighter jets [6]. In the latter case, she managed to convince parliament to not insist on 100% of offset deals [7]. In view of the planned purchase of the jets she also directed employees not to participate in events where potential sellers are involved [8]. However, a more muddled signal was given after 2019 newspaper reports uncovered that a pilot and high ranking officer was allegedly hired by Saab to lobby for the Gripen fighter jet Switzerland was considering buying. The officer was released of his duties as spokesperson of the “Patrouille Suisse” but kept his role as Head of Special Staff Communication (Chef Fachstab Kommunikation) as a member of the militia [9].

Except for reactive statements given in the wake of an expenses scandal by the head of the army [1], no statements by senior ministry staff about values and conduct when it comes to questions of corruption and misappropriation of funds, could be found. It is likely, that despite the lack of public record, that with the new internal regulations on expenses at least reactively senior staff insisted on a change of culture and emphasized certain values [2]. There is no indication that this is done systematically and proactively now. However, there is a 2018 brochure on compliance for employees of the DDPS with a foreword by the head of the armed forces that discusses topics like values, corruption, transparency, and others and can serve as a code of conduct [3]. The rules of the Swiss Army (RSA), which apply to all military personnel, outline standards of behaviours such as discipline and responsiblity, but do not specifically mention corruption [4].

Integrity and anti-corruption are among key measures for the annual administrative plans of the Ministry of National Defence [1]. The Minister of National Defence, Chief of General Staff, and Chiefs of Service have been demonstrating a strong commitment and regular communications to promote the values of honour, integrity and anti-corruption within Taiwan’s Military [2, 3]. Directives, regulations, advice, and official speeches are incorporated into regular training courses and educational programmes which are required at all levels of the military’s hierarchical structure [4].

MND’s commitment to integrity and anti-corruptions is also demonstrated by its working with journalists and civil society organisations via conferences and public discussions. One example of this is the 2019 Global Defence Integrity Forum, which was held in Taiwan’s National Defense University in collaboration with Transparency International Taiwan and Transparency International Defence and Security [1, 2, 3, 4]. Directives, regulations, advise, and statements concerning defence integrity and anti-corruption are archived and made accessible to the entire military and the public with explicit reference to integrity and good defence governance, and to management of corruption risks [5].

The MND’s commitment to integrity and anti-corruption is evidenced by statements given by senior members of ministry staff and senior armed forces officers at official occasions or ceremonies, as well as within service publications [1, 2]. Documents demonstrating the MND’s commitment to and efforts towards defence integrity and anti-corruption, which are organised and archived by the Political Warfare branches, offer explicit reference to integrity, good defence governance, and management of corruption risks [3].

Internal communications focusing on anti-corruption and integrity exist, but cannot be made publicly available, according to a military official interviewed. [1] Research could not identify public evidence of such internal communications.

The army top officials have been showing their commitment to intergrity and anti-corruption to the public in some occasions through interviews with journalists and press releases, while giving examples of specific events of corruption/potential corruption. For example on June 8, 2017, the Chief of service of TPDF Major General Harrison Masebo issued a statement to the public that positions in the army are announced through official media and not social networks. He also noted that the positions are offered following a formal procedures and no any positions are offered through lobbying or giving bribes. Those who bribe will not be given a chance. [1] On November 2, 2019 the government introduced the electronic system know as ‘TAKUKURU APP’ which will help to discover the traffic police officers and other military officials engaged on corruption issues. [2] Another event which was inaugurated was the campaign known as ‘Utatu’ which involves the military unity, the Prevention and combatting of corruption unit, and other stakeholders. The campaign will help the military police to get quick and accurate information on the behaviour of police officers when they are on their everyday traffic operations. [2] However, the lack of interaction with CSOs and journalists is of concern. [3]

This commitment is reflected throughout the defence ministry and armed forces through statements by senior ministry staff and senior armed forces officers about values and conduct, not necessarily at unit parades, graduation ceremonies, or in writing through service publications. Sometimes this commitment is reflected in various areas including in training where a senior officials attends. For instance on February 23, 2017, Geita Regional Police Commander SACP Ladson Mwabulambo Mponjoli asked the Police army to adhere to laws and codes of ethics of the military and to avoid corruption when they are on operations during the seminar on corruption of policy officers. [2] He wanted them to know that they are public servants so they are supposed to adhere to the codes of conducts and ethics of public servants, including avoiding corrupt behaviour. When in Musoma inspecting the military houses, Inspector General of Police Simon Sirro warned the police officers to adhere to the codes of ethics and conducts of Public Servants including refusing corruption, as it is against the Public Service codes of Conducts. [3] He insisted that those who will be found guilty of being corrupt will never continue to be a Millitary Officer as they will be suspended from the army. An ethical pledge is taken by all civil servants but for senior officials such as Unit Commanders, they pledge in public on their days of promotion. Several other instances can be evidenced using electronically retrievable materials. [1] [4] [5] [6]

The announcement of the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters on Ethical Operations, made by Commander-in-Chief of the Army on May 25, 2017, indicates the army’s commitment to anti-corruption policy and transparency; this announcement was published and distributed to all defence agencies [1]. In 2019, the Ministry of Defence also issued the Countermeasure against Corruption within the Army, which encourages the military to participate in the Open Data Integrity and Transparency Assessment (OIT) conducted by the NACC [2]. Each year, the armed forces are also obliged to report their operational commitment to anti-corruption policy to Commander-in-Chief of the Army [3]. There was also the implementation of the anti-corruption charter in accordance with the Commander-in-Chief of the army’s order; this charter is considered to be a mutual agreement among the Royal Thai Armed Forces personnel to commit to integrity and anti-corruption as a whole [4]. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the speeches given by Ministers/Chiefs of the defence sector might fail to reflect their anti-corruption commitment because, in fact, the former Minister of Defence Prawit Wonsuwan himself, for example, is at the centre of a corruption scandal involving luxury watches and diamond rings [5].

When the NCPO seized power on May 22, 2014, one of the justifications it gave to the public was the high levels of corruption plaguing the country under then-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra [1]. At that time, NCPO leader General Prayut, who later became prime minister and continues to hold the post to this day, made several pledges, including the eradication of corruption [2]. Accordingly, the NCPO announced the formation of the National Anti-Corruption Committee to fight corruption in government bureaucracy [3]. In June 2015, the Commander-in-Chief of the army also publicly declared the Ministry of Defence’s commitment to anti-corruption at the ‘Anti-corruption, Thai Ethical Awareness Raising’ event in response to the government’s anti-corruption policy and public demand [4]. On May 25, 2017, the Commander-in-Chief of the army made a statement on the Announcement of the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters on Ethical Operations to demonstrate the army’s commitment to anti-corruption policy and transparency [5].

Moreover, according to the Code of Conduct on Corruption Prevention and Suppression, implemented by the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters, activities are regularly conducted to foster commitment to anti-corruption within the armed forces. These activities include military orientation, anti-corruption education and anti-corruption training at all military levels [6]. In 2019, General Prayut, who is both Prime Minister and Minister of Defence, hosted and founded Anti-Corruption Day in cooperation with the NACC to declare the government’s commitment to corruption prevention [7]. However, specific integrity measures and mechanisms for the management of risk are not mentioned in these public commitments.

According to the Anti-Corruption Charter of the Royal Thai Army, published in 2012, senior ministry staff and senior armed forces officers should raise awareness of and instruct their units about anti-corruption values and conduct and integrity on a regular basis [1]. However, no evidence on this issue can be found. According to Interviewee 3, statements of commitment by the Chiefs or Ministers are mainly made to the public rather than to the unit commanders or leaders [2].

According to our sources, there is a clear anti-corruption commitment from the senior levels of the MoD and the commanders. This is shown through several pieces of training and internal communications during meetings or written statements (1,2). There is a commitment to anti-corruption and integrity measures by the Defence Ministry and senior members of the Armed Forces. This commitment is shown through the organisation of several anti-corruption pieces of training (3,4,5,6,7). Integrity measures are being implemented in collaboration with the Anti-corruption Authority (INLUCC). (8)

According to our sources, the anti-corruption commitment within the MoD is communicated mainly internally and not to the public. The focus is to work internally without any public enagegment within the issue of corruption in the MoD (1,2). The Ministry of Defence does not communicate on issues of corruption on its website (3). Only a few public announcements concerning anti-corruption from the Ministry of Defence could be found through press reviews and these declarations were generally made at seminars or at the conclusion of a convention between the Ministry of Defence and the Anti-corruption Authority (4).

According to our sources, there is commitment yet in a very minimal form by senior figures from the MoD. This is because it is rare that the MoD and its senior commanders comment on issues in general (1,2). There are no indications of senior military officials discussing corruption inside the units or during educational programs.

Interviewee 3 suggests that there have always been internal communication mechanisms between the Ministry of Defence, the General Staff and service commands about anti-corruption and integrity measures. However, he emphasised that there is no internal communication between the Presidency of Defence Industries (SSB), the primary state institution in charge of the procurement, and the Defence Ministry and General Staff. He also emphasised that during his six years of service at the Ministry of Defence, he did not attend any meetings about anti-corruption or integrity measures involving personnel from the Ministry of Defence, the General Staff or the SSB [1]. Interviewee 6 suggested that the most significant internal mechanism addressing anti-corruption and integrity measures is the Ministry of Defence’s Regulation of Internal Inspection Services, which was published in 2012. Although it is not available on open sources, Interviewee 6 noted that there are some parts of this regulation that explain how an internal inspector should respond in the case of corruption or an integrity violation [2]. He also emphasised that every September, the Ministry of Defence’s Financial Auditing Department organises conferences on corruption and integrity-related issues, to which the internal inspectors and finance officers are invited [2].

The Ministry of Defence also has the publicly available Financial Auditing Regulation (2002), which explains how the canteens, social facilities, military housing and markets should be inspected [3]. Article 54 of this regulation grants Ministry of Defence auditers full authority to process all corruption allegations and risks during their inspections.

Interviewees 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, who all served within the military, unanimously suggested that they were not exposed to any internal communications about anti-corruption issues during their service [1,2,4,5,6].

Interviewee 6 suggested that any implication or utterance about anti-corruption may lead to questions about corruption and thus, the strategic culture of the Turkish military hinders high-profile decision-makers in the security sector from speaking openly about anti-corruption and integrity-related issues [2]. The lack of open talk/discussion about anti-corruption and integrity-related issues within the military is therefore a result of cultural bias that should be eliminated with proper mechanisms.

Since summer 2018, not a single public speech or media interview delivered by the Minister of Defence, the Chief of General Staff or the President of the SSB has been found through open-source research that addresses anti-corruption and integrity measures. Both Interviewees 3 and 4 emphasised that, culturally speaking, just talking publicly about anti-corruption and integrity measures is seen as an institutional defect by both military and civilian bureaucratic elites in Turkey [1,2]. Interviewee 4 notes: ‘The prevailing sentiment within the Turkish security bureaucracy is that talking to the public about corruption and integrity measures may make people think that the Turkish military and the security bureaucracy is corrupt. So, avoiding talking about corruption measures and integrity-related issues is a traditional norm within the sector’ [2].

Indeed, open research confirms the remarks of the interviewees presented above, suggesting that, during the talks about the defence budget at parliament’s Planning and Budget Commission in September 2018 and 2019, there was no emphasis on the hearings of Minister of Defence Hulusi Akar.

No media content has been found about anti-corruption and integrity measures at this level since summer 2018. During the literature review of academic articles and Master’s/PhD theses published on the Turkish Staff College and War Academies, not a single article or thesis/dissertation could be found about anti-corruption or integrity-related issues. This proves that even conducting scholarly research or academic writing on these issues is a big taboo for the military.

Interviewee 5 also suggested that in the war academies and staff colleges, the General Secretary of the General Staff organises ethics seminars and conferences to increase awareness of risks within financial activities, the crimes of embezzlement, bribery and corruption in the Turkish legal system and some basic information about the contracting processes [1].

There are many instances where high ranking military officers and the commander in chief have warned about corruption, and this has been consistent both from the security chiefs, the ministers and also the president as the commander in chief. For instance, according to the Daily Monitor, the Uganda People’s Defence Force acting Chief of Staff for Land Forces, Brigadier General Katsigazi Tumusiime, warned army officers against engaging in corrupt deals, as well as behaving in a manner that is unbecoming. According to the senior Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF) officer, corruption and indiscipline, if not guarded against, will not only dent the reputation of the army but also sink it into the abyss. Speaking during the graduation of 79 officers who completed a six-month training, called the company commanders course at Junior Command and Staff College in Jinja, Brigadier General Katsigazi advised the officers to stick to the UPDF’s code of conduct, saying it will keep them off trouble and corrupt temptations [1]. The head of the State House Anti-Corruption Unit, who has made several arrests of those suspected of involvement in corruption, Lieutenant Colonel Edith Nakalema, called upon UPDF officers to be exemplary and join her in the fight against corruption in the country. Lieutenant Colonel Nakalema made the remarks while giving a lecture of opportunity to participants, who had been undergoing a Special Investigations Course at Muhooti Barracks in Fort Portal, Kabarole district. She called upon the students to teach and sensitize the public about the dangers of corruption while at the same time instilling a culture of dedicated selfless service in all issues that propel the growth of a nation [2]. The army also participated in the anti-corruption walk, which took place in December 2019 [3]. These speeches are frequently made, but the challenge remains to put them into action.

According to a local radio station, 93.3 KFM, youths from northern Uganda seeking to join the UPDF have been asked to avoid corruption. This was issued from the UPDF Recruitment Team Three leader, covering the northern region, Colonel Stephen Ebulu. Colonel Ebulu said that when it comes to recruitment in the UPDF, candidates must know that there is no room for corruption, saying that patriots are those who are selfless and can sacrifice for others. More than 1000 prospective candidates turned up to compete for the sixty-one slots meant for the four districts of Gulu, Amuru, Omoro and Nwoya at pace stadium [1]. On another occasion, the UPDF also joined the rest of the country during an anti-corruption walk [2] which was organised by the State House Anti-Corruption Unit, the inspector general of the government (IGG) and the Directorate of Ethics and Integrity, and took place in Kampala in December 2019. The commander in chief has frequently talked about corruption in almost all the functions he has been addressing.

The head of State House Anti-Corruption Unit, Lieutenant Colonel Edith Nakalema, called upon Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) officers to be exemplary and join her in the fight against corruption in the country. “There is a need for everyone to fight corruption right from the grassroots to the top if we are to have a corrupt free country. Refer to Article 17 (1)(i) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda which spells out the duties of a citizen one of which is to combat corruption and misuse or wastage of public property” [1]. According to Uganda Media Centre, President Yoweri Museveni has strongly advised the UPDF to uphold and maintain the discipline and the good relationship that the military has cultivated with wananchi [civilians]. The president was speaking during the 39th Tarehe Sita celebrations that took place at Butalangu Grounds, Nakaseke District in the Great Luweero Triangle that comprises the districts of Nakaseke, Nakasongola and Luweero. During the celebrations, President Museveni awarded medals to a number of outstanding UPDF officers and civilians in appreciation of their services for serving the country well [2, 3].

The minister of defence addresses corruption issues in his internal communications [1, 2, 3], as do other high ranking MoD officials [4]. However, there is little evidence of the chief of the General Staff (chief of defence) and single service chiefs addressing corruption issues in their internal communications. There are also anti-corruption measures in place like anti-corruption seminars [5], anti-corruption weeks [6], academic courses [7] and lectures [8].

There is evidence that MoD staff communicate externally on corruption issues in the defence sector. For instance, the Minister of Defence demonstrates this through interviews with journalists [1, 2], other high ranking MoD officials participate in meetings with anti-corruption and integrity building NGOs [3, 4] and address those issues in the VRU [5]. At the same time, MoD officials do not always mention specific integrity measures or the management of risks.

As follows from interviews with a former ATO participant, unit commanders seldom addressed corruption issues in their communications with the personnel in 2015-2016, although there might have been some particular cases [1, 2]. Another interviewee reported there were occasions when unit commanders instruct defence personnel on how to handle weapons and military property and piecemeal touch corruption issues since the personnel could be held accountable for the military property they got [3]. However, there is no evidence that defence personnel in the field is briefed on corruption issues [3].

There is a very little commitment by the MoD and its personalities. During a few events, and visits by the commander in chief of the armed forces, they express enthusiasm against corruption. However, the ministry might issue internal communications of a superficial nature in support of anti-corruption and integrity measures, which come as letters during special events like the Transparency International Index Annual Report that the UAE is the first in the region (1), (2).

The UAE leadership is also the head of the armed forces, and they issue many public statements committing the country and its leadership and institutions to integrity and anti-corruption (1), (2). Many of the statements are available online in newspapers or elsewhere (3).

There is little stated commitment on behalf of any defence personnel (commanders are mostly from the royal families) about building integrity and countering corruption within the defence sector. Research showed that many UAE government representatives, none of which are unit commanders or leaders in the defence sector, have reiterated their commitment to countering corruption in the country (1), (2).

According to the MoD, senior officials regularly refer to anti-corruption in strategic internal communications. Officials are heavily involved in awareness raising campaigns and provide key note speeches and short videos to support internal communications on the issue. One example that was provided is the use of International Fraud Awareness Week to internally publicise fraud, bribery and corruption awareness which is driven by senior officials [1]. The MOD’s internal Corporate Standards Policy also outlines standards and behaviours expected of defence personnel and includes sections on bribery, theft, corruption and whistleblowing that outlines commitments to anti-corruption, although it is not clear how regulalry this policy is reviewed [2].

Public statements by the Secretary of Defence and other top officials demonstrating a commitment to integrity and anti-corruption measures are rare [1]. In 2016, Defence Minister Mark Lancaster, in an answer to an enquiry made by an MP, stated that the ‘Ministry of Defence takes allegations of fraud, theft, corruption and bribery seriously and works hard to detect and deter it’ [2]. According to the MoD, public commitments to anti-corruption and integrity would only be made in case an incident occured in this area and senior officials wished to condemn it on the record [3].

Values & Standards training (which includes Integrity) is mandatory for Service personnel. Elements of the MoD are required to undertake mandatory fraud awareness training courses [1]. However, research was not able to identify any evidence of senior ministry staff or senior armed forces officers addressing integrity measures, or management of risk.

The Standards of Conduct Office within the DoD publishes statements from the Secretaries of Defense relating to integrity [1]. Under the Trump administration (which is covers the major period of this research), seven memorandums have been made by the Secretary of Defense to DoD employees and military personnel relating to ethics and integrity. None of these statements, however, include specific references to anti-corruption. Moreover, these statements have been published at irregular intervals. Secretary Esper published one memo in February 2020 entitled ‘Ethical Conduct and Political Activities’; similarly, Secretary Mattis published a memo in August 2017 entitled ‘Ethical Standards for All Hands’. Both are brief statements of commitment to ethical conduct [2,3].

No public statements could be found on the issue of anti-corruption or ethics and integrity, which covers the research period of this index (2015-2020) [1].

No publicly available unit-level communications could be found.

Within the Ministry of the People’s Power for Defence (MPPD) and entities attached to the sector, commitment to integrity is expressed superficially. Senior officials have claimed “a fight to the death” against corruption within the framework of fiscal control training from the Office of the Comptroller General of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces (CONGEFANB), which makes references a duty of maintaining the integrity of the service [1]. However, on the official pages of institutions attached to the MPPD, in official news, and in the ministry’s other public documents there is no evidence of express commitments against corruption or concrete actions taken to avoid malpractices. Indeed, military experts affirm that within the National Bolivarian Armed Forces (FANB) no communications demonstrate an interest in maintaining anti-corruption commitments among officials [2].

No public commitments against corruption have been made by the minister of defence or by FANB officers of the General Staff. Indeed, following President Nicolás Maduro’s announcement of an Anti-corruption Plan in 2018, in which he declared that the plan would involve various sectors, there have been no statements from the MPPD representative [1]. Recently, statements by Vladimir Padrino Lopez regarding corruption have aimed to defend the main commanders of the FANB – including himself – of accusations and of sanctions imposed by foreign governments for alleged involvement in cases of corruption [2]. Against these accusations, these statements include no arguments of defence that express a personal or institutional commitment against corruption. Rather, most of these arguments are framed in terms of defending the FANB against interference from foreign powers [3].

In speeches, statements, and press releases made by officers among the leadership of the Strategic Operational Command of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces (CEOFANB), the different Strategic Integral Defence Regions (REDI), and the Integral Defence Operational Zones (ZODI), no mention has been made of commitments to fight corruption and promote integrity internally within the FANB [1]. Although most commanders of the REDI have been charged and sanctioned by other countries for involvement in corruption and illegal activities, none of these commanders have responded to these allegations [2].

There are instances where senior army officials have bemoaned cases of corruption and criminal activities by soldiers and in the army in general. This is usually done at the pass out parades and graduation ceremonies for staff courses [1]. However, this is difficult to judge as willingness or a clear commitment to address corruption given the extent to which the army and senior commanders are alleged to be involved in corrupt activities at a grand scale. There are instances where senior defence and security officials are publicly implicated in cases of corruption [2]. In most cases, reported cases of corruption that are publicly investigated and brought before public courts or court-martials mostly involve lower-ranking officers.

Senior defence and army officials do make public references to issues of discipline and integrity, particularly during speeches at the pass out parades and graduation ceremonies for staff courses [1]. However, this can be seen as superficial given the extent to which senior officers of the defences forces are alleged to be involved in corruption [2, 3].

Senior defence and army officials make regular references to discipline and integrity at parades and graduations [1]. However, the high number of cases of widespread corruption and indiscipline by soldiers and commanding officers makes it difficult to conclude that unit commanders and leaders have a strong commitment to addressing indiscipline and violations of defence forces values. Nonetheless, cases of indiscipline, theft and corruption are brought before the court-martial [2].

Country Sort by Country 34a. Chiefs/Ministers: Internal communications Sort By Subindicator 34b. Chiefs/Ministers: Public commitment Sort By Subindicator 34c. Unit commanders and leaders Sort By Subindicator
Albania 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Algeria 0 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Angola 0 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Argentina 0 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Armenia 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Australia 75 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Azerbaijan 25 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Bahrain 0 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Bangladesh 100 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Belgium 100 / 100 100 / 100 25 / 100
Bosnia and Herzegovina 75 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Botswana 25 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Brazil 25 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Burkina Faso 0 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Cameroon 0 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Canada 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Chile 50 / 100 50 / 100 NEI
China 100 / 100 75 / 100 100 / 100
Colombia 75 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
Cote d'Ivoire 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Denmark 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Egypt 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Estonia 75 / 100 50 / 100 25 / 100
Finland 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
France 50 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Germany 75 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Ghana 50 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Greece 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Hungary 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
India 75 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
Indonesia 75 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
Iran 0 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Iraq 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Israel 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Italy 50 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Japan 75 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Jordan 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Kenya 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Kosovo 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Kuwait 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Latvia 50 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Lebanon 50 / 100 100 / 100 0 / 100
Lithuania 50 / 100 50 / 100 0 / 100
Malaysia 50 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100
Mali 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Mexico 25 / 100 75 / 100 0 / 100
Montenegro 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Morocco 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Myanmar 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Netherlands 100 / 100 75 / 100 75 / 100
New Zealand 100 / 100 100 / 100 75 / 100
Niger 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Nigeria 25 / 100 NEI 0 / 100
North Macedonia 75 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Norway 75 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Oman 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Palestine 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Philippines 100 / 100 100 / 100 50 / 100
Poland 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Portugal 25 / 100 50 / 100 NEI
Qatar 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Russia 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Saudi Arabia 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
Serbia 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Singapore 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
South Africa 50 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
South Korea 50 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
South Sudan NEI 0 / 100 NEI
Spain 50 / 100 25 / 100 50 / 100
Sudan 0 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Sweden 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Switzerland 75 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Taiwan 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100
Tanzania 25 / 100 75 / 100 50 / 100
Thailand 75 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
Tunisia 100 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100
Turkey 25 / 100 0 / 100 25 / 100
Uganda 50 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
Ukraine 25 / 100 75 / 100 25 / 100
United Arab Emirates 25 / 100 25 / 100 0 / 100
United Kingdom 75 / 100 50 / 100 50 / 100
United States 50 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Venezuela 25 / 100 0 / 100 0 / 100
Zimbabwe 25 / 100 25 / 100 25 / 100

With thanks for support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs who have contributed to the Government Defence Integrity Index.

Transparency International Defence & Security is a global programme of Transparency International based within Transparency International UK.

Privacy Policy

UK Charity Number 1112842

All rights reserved Transparency International Defence & Security 2022