Corruption can prolong conflict and obstruct post-conflict settlement, and must be addressed throughout the process of peace-making and peacekeeping. Once a conflict has broken out, perspectives can narrow—corruption issues may fall by the wayside or be seen as a governance issue, when in reality, they are central to the conflict and its resolution.

International peace-making efforts often focus on the requirements of the key parties, rather than setting out a roadmap towards stability and a functioning state. Under these conditions private greed can easily influence prominent personalities and corruption can flourish. The UNDP, in its report Fighting Corruption in Post-Conflict and Recovery Situations, has found that several factors shape post-conflict corruption: the way the conflict ends and the peace agreement is formed; the legacy of wartime corruption; the circumstances and potential turmoil of transitional governments; and resource wealth and potential for exploitation.

TI has provided guidance in addressing corruption risk for use by UN missions. The success of the mission and the reputation of the peacekeeping nations are often at stake over the way corruption is handled.

A critical element in the conflict resolution and/or immediate post-conflict phase is the role of the military. Some analysts have suggested that in dealing with corruption and associated organised crime, peacekeeping operations may need to serve as a vehicle for the delivery of wider state functions, such as border enforcement and crime fighting; a co-ordination mechanism for other actors, and a focal point for longer-term capacity building. In these circumstances the defence and security sectors, police and judiciary need special attention. This is not solely due to their key role in delivering sustainable state institutions, but also because in many cases they are likely to be better resourced than many other areas of government.

Peace-making and peacekeeping operations can be hampered by corruption. Corrupt activities can fund insurgencies, fuelling instability and endangering peacekeeping troops. Corrupt activities by peacekeeping forces destroy their legitimacy and limit the operation’s effectiveness.

Case Study: Sierra Leone Anti-Corruption Commission

Although its civil war would rage on until 2002, Sierra Leone’s Anti-Corruption Commission was established by Act of Parliament in 2000, due to widespread recognition that corruption was a key factor perpetuating the conflict. It was a three-tiered structure aimed at curbing corruption, comprising prevention, public awareness-raising and investigations. However, the realities of a post-conflict environment were such that despite attempts to cast its net wide, the Commission was plagued by public distrust, an inadequate mandate, insufficient funding and a structure lacking genuine political independence. In order to remedy this situation and prevent Sierra Leone from descending back into armed conflict, the government was pushed to intensify its anti-corruption efforts. Consequently, the creation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy (NACS) aimed to build wide stakeholder coalitions in the fight against corruption, and placed a particular emphasis on active partnership with civil society and the media.
Importantly, NACS also called for an overhaul of the Anti-Corruption Act. The resulting Anti-Corruption Act 2008 instituted an independent Anti-Corruption Commission, tasked with the investigation, prevention, prosecution and punishment of corruption – without recourse to the attorney general and minister of justice, as was previously the (faulty) case. Its remit covered individuals and institutions, both public and private. The resulting policy is notable for its far-reaching measures.

Read more on Corruption in Conflict Zones

Read more on Why it Matters.

Read more on Our Work.