home > Media Room > News Archive > Mark Pyman and Stewart Eldon visit the US > Sir Stewart Eldon's presentation: Anti-corruption measures are key when overcoming conflict

Sir Stewart Eldon's presentation: Anti-corruption measures are key when overcoming conflict

Sir Stewart Eldon’s session at the Institute of International Economic Policy of GWU focused on the impact that corruption has in the evolution of conflict, and how it should be considered in the different stages of the settlement process.

“If you don’t build institutions, you will not overcome conflict and you risk falling into the vicious circle of becoming a failing state, then falling into conflict again, then going through reconstruction, and then becoming a failing state again. Unless you get the institutions right, you are not going to have a lasting solution. Corruption has a role in sabotaging institutions and it’s important to factor this into the conflict matrix” he explained.

Nevertheless, this is very difficult to achieve. It is well documented that the position of a conflict negotiator is not an easy place to be. “If you are appointed and you start and there are people fighting and killing each other, you are under an enormous pressure to produce a deal, and that in turn pressures you into just focusing on the positions of the two or three main protagonists” explained Eldon. As the experience in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and other places show, the position of these protagonists may not be the one which is best suited for the long-term security of the country.

Sir Stewart’s 30-year experience in this area has taught him it’s all about taking a step back and pausing, so that negotiators can figure out what they should be really aiming at. “Corruption is an important part of it, as it can be the main spoiler of the process” he stressed.

Why bother with tackling corruption? Although there is a temptation to live with it and design things around it, that doesn’t work according to Eldon. The alternative of accepting some corrupt practices as a way of closing a deal shouldn’t lightly be an option either. “Clean settlements are more durable and cheaper. Turning the blind eye to corruption in the beginning or during the settlement process will come back and bite you” warned Eldon.

He explained the conflict resolution process can be divided into four stages, all of which have corruption risks which need to be addressed:

  1. Before the international mandate is agreed, an analysis of the conflict is needed. This involves having a close look at the history, drivers and the key players. However, this is only 20% of the task. The other 80% of the problem is the people: paying attention to the political economy of the country and the conflict is a key factor. This means understanding how governments extract income, whom they co-opt it to do so, how existing institutions are structured and run, and an analysis of the licit and illicit financial flows, amongst other things. It is the latter which can help identify elites, the channels used to divert money and the key drivers of conflict.
  2. When adopting the mandate, its scope and objectives need to the established, and key negotiators appointed. The mission structure needs to be carefully designed in order to get procurement and contracting rules right. This is a key element to minimising the international impact of corruption. It is also essential to provide anti-corruption training.
  3. In the negotiation phase, there needs to be clarity on the tools and levers available. It is very important to retain a strategic perspective at this point, and not to get blinded by the short-term pressure to settle. “Corruption measures will not be the fulcrum of the deal but they should help you construct one. In countering corruption, deliberate action, not precipitate action, most times works out best” stressed Eldon.
  4. During the implementation, Eldon’s advice is to find who and what can help you do the job, get support from the local population, and achieve effective coordination mechanisms, as actors can have different power in theory and in practice (e.g. The UN in Afghanistan; although they are the coordinators, ISAF is more powerful on the ground). A key element here is monitoring and standard-setting. And it is NGOs and civil society who are the best at holding governments and the international community to account.

You can listen to this presentation below:

Corruption and Conflict TI-DSP at GWU by TI Defence


Read more on this visit to the USA.

Download a video of the presentation.

Download the presentation's slides.

Read more News from our Programme.

Read more from our Media Room.

Learn more on Our Work and Focus Areas.