GLOBAL INTEGRITY LOOKS AT THE POSITIVE ELEMENTS IN

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BAGHDAD 000861 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR INL/C/CP, INL/I, NEA/I, S/I E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KCOR PGOV KDEM IZ SUBJECT: GLOBAL INTEGRITY LOOKS AT THE POSITIVE ELEMENTS IN THE GOI ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS REF: BAGHDAD 513 ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: When discussing anti-corruption efforts with Iraqi officials, they frequently refer to the 2008 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI), rating Iraq as tied for second with Myanmar for the most corrupt country, as an unfair and unrealistic representation of the GOI's anti-corruption efforts. In February 2009, Global Integrity released its Integrity Indicators report (reftel). Iraq rated in the "Very Weak" category along with the other four Arab countries, plus the West Bank, that were surveyed. Iraq ranked virtually on par with Egypt and places ahead of, in order, the West Bank, Morocco, and Yemen. Using data obtained through public testimony, official reports, and the Iraqi constitution and laws to construct an analysis of anti-corruption mechanisms and government accountability, the Global Integrity Report (GIR) presents a different rating structure, assessing integrity and measuring the framework available for fighting corruption, not the extent of the problem itself. This report's rating scores ranged from a high of 100 down to zero. Summarizing some key areas, Iraq scored 100 on a number of specific questions regarding institutions and laws, though when asked related inquiries about enforcement, effectiveness, or citizen access to information regarding the provision discussed, the scores plummeted. Based on the GIR indicators, Iraq already has a positive and defined legal and constitutional framework in which to work. It is up to the Iraqis to use this framework and build a system which follows the content and intent of the laws and constitution to fight and reduce corruption through increased transparency, accountability, and enforcement. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (U) In February 2009, Global Integrity (GI) released its annual Global Integrity Report (GIR),covering 46 mostly developing countries, including for the first time, Iraq. Overall, it presents a more comprehensive and positive statement of those areas in which Iraq does have the legal and institutional foundations for an anti-corruption regime than the often cited Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) ranking Iraq tied for second as the world's most corrupt country (with only Somalia ranked lower). Iraqi interlocutors critically question their poor rating on the CPI. TI asked questions related to ex-pat Iraqis and foreign subjects' perceptions of the extent of government corruption, the likelihood of encountering corrupt officials, and the scale of bribery. They did not survey subjects resident in Iraq. The GIR depended more on experts' documents, legal and constitutional material, press reports, and official testimony. ¶3. (U) Although in the GIR's final analysis Iraq still rates in the "Very Weak" category along with the other four Arab countries, plus the West Bank, that were surveyed. Iraq ranked virtually on par with Egypt and places ahead of, in order, the West Bank, Morocco, and Yemen. The (GIR) is neither a poll nor a survey. It is an index that assesses capacity, not corruption, actions, or the extent of the problem. As stated in the GI methodology White Paper, "GI quantitatively assesses the opposite of corruption, that is, the access that citizens and businesses have to a country's government, their ability to monitor its behavior, and their ability to seek redress and advocate for improved governance." The Integrity Scorecard covers existing public integrity mechanisms, e.g., laws and institutions, their Qintegrity mechanisms, e.g., laws and institutions, their effectiveness, and citizen access. The report highlights Iraq's strengths in its legal and constitutional framework, giving positive credit where due, while tempering those scores with a realistic assessment of the effectiveness and transparency of anti-corruption and other governmental agencies. ¶4. (SBU) The GIR rating scores ranged from a high of 100 down to zero. The ranking system defines five performance "tiers:" "Very Strong" 90 or above; "Strong" 80-89; "Moderate" 70-79; "Weak" 60-69; and "Very Weak" below 60. Summarizing some key areas, Iraq scored 100 on a number of specific questions, though when asked related inquiries about enforcement, effectiveness, or use of the provision discussed, the scores plummeted. For example, in the GIR, the statement that the media and free speech are protected rated a score of 100. (Note: This statement has been challenged by embassy officers citing Iraq's criminal libel laws. End note.). However, the report then notes Iraq ranks at zero when it asks if journalists are safe when investigating corruption and if the public has access to information. The score for having an election monitoring agency was 100; the scores for regulations covering financing political parties or individual candidates and the public's BAGHDAD 00000861 002 OF 002 access to financial records ranged from 14 (referring to the regulations) to zero for all related issues. The GIR gave Iraq 100 for giving its citizens the right to sue the government for infringement of their civil rights. (Note: To date, no Iraqi has ever prevailed in such a suit. End note.). Iraq rated zero on the question of citizens' access to MPs' asset disclosure records, while scoring 67 when asking if members of the legislature could be held accountable for their actions. The judicial accountability questions received positive scores ranging from 83, that judges are appointed fairly, to 42 that judges can be held accountable for their actions. Civil service regulations received 100 points for the national regulations in place, but a score of 28 when asked if the law governing the administration and civil service is effective. The GOI rated 100 for having an internal mechanism through which civil servants can report corruption, 13 for its effectiveness, and 25 when asked if employees are protected when reporting corruption. There is a national supreme audit institution (the Board of Supreme Audit),which rated 100 points, (Note: The BSA has often been less than open in its actual performance and anecdotal evidence indicates a likely lesser score. End note.),but noted citizens' access to this institution's reports rated zero. ¶5. (U) Specific anti-corruption indicators received variable scores from 100 to 25, with one indicator at zero. The existence of legislation criminalizing corruption earned an 89. The presence of an agency (or group of agencies) with a legal mandate to address corruption scored 100. The effectiveness of the anti-corruption agency (or agencies) came in at 33 and citizens' access to these agencies scored ¶38. There is legislation protecting the anti-corruption agencies from political interference, but because in practice there is political interference, that indicator received a score of 25. The indicator scoring zero asks if the head of an anti-corruption agency is protected from removal without relevant justification. Other indicators of agencies' effectiveness, e.g., they receive regular funding, make appointments based on professional criteria, publish regular public reports, possess sufficient power to carry out their mandates, and citizens can complain to the anti-corruption agencies without fear of recrimination all garnered a 25. The ability of these agencies to independently initiate investigations and act on complaints in a reasonable time both rated a score of 50. ¶6. (SBU) COMMENT: The GIR is a tool that measures legal and institutional frameworks of government, not performance or levels of corruption. While it emphasizes GOI strengths, it can be used as a guide to prioritize governance challenges as it also highlights the areas of the GOI anti-corruption framework most in need of reform. The GIR makes no pretense of being a comprehensive and systematic gathering of data; it is an in-depth analysis of information available to the public and it relies on disparate and sometimes uncorroborated or outdated reports, testimony, or data from open sources. The TI's CPI is a tool measuring ex-pat Iraqi and foreigners' confidence in Iraqi governmental institutions, done at a time of uncertainty over the security situation in Iraq. Even though the GIR gave Iraq an overall "Very Weak" rating, the format and methods used avoid the type of single ranking design used in the CPI that so stigmatized Iraq by its low rating. What is clear, based on Qstigmatized Iraq by its low rating. What is clear, based on the GIR's results, is that Iraq already has defined legal and institutional frameworks through which it can fight corruption. It is up to the Iraqis to use this framework and build a system which follows the content and intent of the laws and the constitution to reduce corruption through increased transparency, accountability, and enforcement. END COMMENT. BUTENIS