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