Iraqi Corruption

Yesterday, I spent some 4 hours watching the CSPAN televised House Appropriations Committee hearing on corruption in Iraq (Rep Waxman, Dem, CA presiding as Chairman). There were various panels, but one of particular note was the one composed of the Comptroller General of the GAO, the Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction, and the former Iraqi Judge for Investigations into Corrupt Practices (who, in fear of his life, has recently requested political asylum for himself and family in the United States). This panel was followed by U.S. State Department testimony and a Republican requested witness representing some policy think tank "in defense of democratic governments," which I gathered was a neo-con leaning organization.

The hearing, which the State Department requested NOT be held, was informative. Waxman is doing useful oversight work and despite the obvious Democratic political overtones, should be of interest to both Republicans and Democrats.

I believe, however, there were two significant points or perspectives not touched upon. The purpose of this blog is to address both here, but first a general observation regarding the former Iraqi Judge of the Public Integrity Commission, Radhi al-Radhi.

Radhi testified that he estimated $18B lost to public corruption. He was also critical of the existing government and Prime Minister Maliki, whom he felt had squelched corruption investigations regarding several relatives. As is all too typical of Republican politics these days, Radhi was attacked by several of the Committee's Republicans (notably Dan Burton) on personal grounds, rather than challenging Radhi's actual testimony. Burton asked him what he position he had held under the Saddam Hussein regime ("Isn't it true you were a Public Prosecutor appointed by Saddam Hussein?"). The implication was, of course, that the Judge was a former regime member and therefore could not be trusted. This went on throughout Burton's question time; he would ask the "damning question" and then sit back, smiling smugly. Pure Joe McCarthyism. Unfortunate to his implication, Burton hadn't done his homework. The Judge replied that yes, he was for a period a Prosecutor in a Misdemeanor Court, and had been trained as a jurist in the University system. He had also been arrested and tortured twice and was Shia, not Sunni. There was no apology for Burton's attack; he simply got up and left the hearing.

Although Burton probably doesn't get it, he's one of Waxman's most supportive committee members; Waxman just let him hang himself.

Turning to what I believe were omissions, none touched on the legal status of the United States in Iraq or the possible cultural definition of "corruption" itself.

The U.S. panel members, head of GAO and the Special IG, went to pains to explain that the hearing was focusing not on corruption involving U.S. taxpayer funds, but on Iraq money. All agreed it was a somewhat vague distinction, but the GAO Comptroller General and Special IG both agreed that while we might have an overall interest in Iraqi corruption, we did not have a right to question (through audit) how efficiently or "cleanly" they spent their own money. And, there seemed to be a bipartisan consensus on the Committee on this point.

However, what I missed in this discussion was the question of whether or not we, in fact and international law, do have some fiscal oversight responsibility as the recognized "Occupying Power." While, I understand that we are transitioning from one Iraqi regime to another, I believe that we are still classified as an Occupying Power, with specific responsibilities. Whether or not those responsibilities include oversight of Iraqi internal financial affairs is a question in my mind and was not addressed.

The second issue that I believe the Committee omitted and that I would have liked to have seen was to attempt to define "corruption" in broader, cultural terms (although granted Waxman isn't the "philosopher type," more the "accountant.).

While there was a clear bi-partisan consensus that similar corruption had become almost the norm under the Saddam Hussein regime, it ended there. No one suggested that what we in the West might consider "corruption" was, in part, tied to a longer regional tradition extending much farther back than Hussein and possibly intertwined with Islam itself.

While I am not expert enough to draw conclusions, I would have enjoyed more discussion on this topic. For instance, what might well be considered "bribery" in Western culture, may simply be a means of "doing business" in the Middle East. This isn't so clearly right or wrong, but has to be understood within the context of the region's historical development and religion.

I would suggest that the historical development is essentially based on tribal perogitives. The money accepted in a "bribe" often goes not to merely enrich an individual, but to the older tradition of tribal organization. And, Islam, would seem to me, to deal with this in a unique way. First, there is no "clear" distinction between the state and the religion. Religious authority and principles regarding individual behavior are supreme and protected by a sort of "Supreme Court" of the religious hierarchy. But part of their authority (and success over the centuries) lies with this authority's reluctance to intrude on the day-to-day workings of the state. Bribery then is viewed much as part of the tribal system itself and, by extension, to the politics of the state. In other words, there is a subtle difference between how Western cultures and Middle Eastern cultures view and define "corruption." And, to, this provides for a curious form of democracy. The ultimate religious authorities do not draw their power from the state, but ultimately from the will of the people themselves, who have passed "power" to those recognized as their religious leaders. The result is that this produces, rightly or wrongly, a more "uniform" value system for the society, which the state then enforces, not in a dictatorial sense, but rather as religious principle.

Of course, as the Iraqi Judge pointed out, "corruption is corruption." In both cultures there is bribery amounting to "theft." A case in point is the former Iraqi Minister of Electricity who was convicted under Iraqi law of essentially stealing some $2B. This person, according to the testimony before the Committee, had been convicted in an Iraqi court of law and was being held in the Green Zone in Baghdad pending sentencing. Somehow, an American private security firm (not Blackwater), managed to get him out of confinement and he is now alive and well and living in Chicago.

The significance of the above lies in the difficulties (if not impossibility) of creating a westernized democracy in Iraq or elsewhere within the Islamic world. Just as with our own Christian fundamentalists and the American Israeli lobby, I do not expect we have much hope of totally "secularizing" Islam and that many of our efforts (and judgements pertaining to the Iraqi people) are perceived by the majority of the Iraqi people as attempts to do so.