ARRC Journal 2018 | Page 61

READY FOR TODAY – EVOLVING FOR TOMORROW of corruption requires the topic to be integrated into the routine battle rhythm of the HQ; not treated as an isolated aberration to be dealt with outside the planning mainstream. Summary Corruption should be considered at the outset of planning enforcement to support malfunctioning governments in maintaining the rule of law, the provision of essential services, governance and dealing with a fleeing population or refugees. Many of the hard- learnt lessons from counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are also relevant for warfighting. Understanding the Problem Rooting out corruption in host nation institutions is beyond the capacity and responsibility of a Corps HQ. Such assistance to the host nation for combatting corruption within its state institutions should be provided by the International Community. Nonetheless, the military commander requires an understanding of the levels of corruption in the area of operations in order to protect the force (and NATO’s) reputation; and to prevent an adverse impact on success of the mission. To develop a proper understanding of the civil environment, corruption should be considered at the outset of planning and form part of the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) process (G2-led but G9 supported). Having an understanding of the reputational and operational risks will lead to the development of robust mitigation measures. Mitigation Risk mitigation requires robust personnel, contracting and disciplinary norms to be understood and enforced. It also requires an integrated approach across all staff branches. Within the ARRC, this function is delivered through the Transparency, Accountability and Counter-Corruption Working Group (TACC WG). Membership of the TACC WG includes (but not limited to); personnel (for vetting procedures), To date, with support and involvement of the ‘Building Integrity’ teams from NATO and the UK Defence Academy, 77 Brigade, Transparency International, Italian Carabinieri and the City of London Police, the ARRC has achieved a sound understanding of the potential impact of corruption on operations. It is part of a community of interest that has supported the ARRC’s own testing of its mitigation measures. Following TRIDENT JUNCTURE 16, the ARRC’s NRF certification exercise, the ARRC TACC WG was assessed as best practice. For the future, the work of the TACC WG will continue both when deployed and in barracks. The aim in the long term is to further develop ARRC doctrine in line with the Building Integrity direction outlined at the 2016 Warsaw Summit 1 and to fully embed counter corruption processes into the ARRC plan, refine, execute and assess process. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Peter Appleby is currently the Stabilisation Planner with the Engineer and Civil Military Interaction branch at HQ Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. Col Alex van Nieuwburg is currently serving as ACOS G9 at HQ Allied Rapid Reaction Corps. “Acknowledging that the United States and the West bear some responsibility for the state of corruption in Afghanistan, the great challenge to Afghanistan’s future is not the Taliban or Pakistani safe havens or even an incipiently hostile Pakistan. The existential threat to the long-term viability of modern Afghanistan is corruption.” General John Allen, COMISAF 2014 intelligence and network analysis, Public Affairs, Information Operations, operational planning, force protection, contracting and civil military inter-action. In short, to mitigate the potential risk 1 Warsaw Summit 2016 Communique, paragraph 130, endorsement by NATO Heads of State and Government of NATO’s Building Integrity Policy. The work of the ARRC TACC WG has evolved from this policy. ALLIED RAPID REACTION CORPS 61