Tyzhden.ua discussed some characteristics of fighting corruption in the defense and security sectors and new trends in our politics with Sergejus Muravjovas, the head of the Lithuanian chapter of Transparency International.
Active intervention of anti-corruption organizations into the main activities of the Ministry of Defense can cause slowdowns or, in some cases, lead to a standstill. During wartime, it is impossible to take any action. Do you have a way to solve this dilemma?
In my view, the term “the fight against corruption” does not reflect the exact meaning of the issue. When you struggle with, you become short-sighted, overwhelmed with the emotions and are not able to recognize any perspective. Very often, people are unable to understand the real goals to be achieved.
Although, anti-corruption practices should not be short-lived; it likes a marathon. It is important to understand that when you begin to work in the area of anti-corruption, it is long-term task.
It is crucial to understand its meaning in terms of resources, commitment and expected results.
If you do not understand clearly the tasks or perform your duties in a hasty manner, it is best to do nothing. When you develop certain expectations that are not realistic, people will be disappointed and you may lose a reputation as a politician or civil servant.
As for the defense sector, in TI Lithuania we work much on this issue as well. I think this is a very important subject. I am very pleased that our military, the Lithuanian Land Force (LLF), clearly understands it. We have a very constructive and productive partnership with these institutions in recent years as they have taken into account criticism and some of our proposals were included into the LLF anti-corruption program. I believe our army and our specialists working in the defense sector understand that the anti-corruption policies are an integral part of our security. You cannot but agree that when the country and the defense system are both corrupt, it makes us vulnerable. I am glad that our politicians understand the anti-corruption issues through this prism and this issue is very important to us.
Very often, corruption risks are laid behind secrecy requirements traditional for the defense sector …
Of course, secrecy over these subjects always exists. It is important to come to agreement on the question what should be marked a top secret or what kind of documents could be disclosed with the public. It is important to know the criteria applied to the state documents and the state decision to share information with the public or, otherwise, keep it secret.
As for this reason, I propose to recognize anti-corruption measures as risk management. We do everything possible to reduce risks of corruption in the defense and security sectors of our countries.
It is difficult for me to imagine another scenario in which I am, a taxpayer or a citizen, will be safe enough paying taxes to the state. I want to be sure that my army will be able to protect me in case of military invasion and be sure that the government does everything possible to guarantee this protection for me. But every country and every government has to maintain a skillful balance between public control and privacy. In Lithuania, we are discussing a lot what kind of information and quantity of information we have to disclosure with the public.
Recently, we actively discuss the purchase of armored transport vehicles for the army needs. This subject matter was important because it was the largest contract signed during the independence period (in 2016, Lithuania purchased 88 the Boxer armored transport vehicles manufactured by ARTEC, the German manufacturer for more than 385 million euros – Ed.). This purchase was marked top secret and performed under different rules not typical for public procurement in the army. And everyone understood that there was no need to disclosure this information. Also, with an air of importance, it should be clearly identified what kind of information he/she should be allowed to deal with, and how these rules are applied to information disclosure. In case there is the swamp of information and no clear data, and only separate parts of information are available, it could lead to abusive practices.
It is difficult for me to imagine another scenario in which I am, a taxpayer or a citizen, will be safe enough. I want to be sure that my army will be able to protect me in case of military invasion and I want to be sure that the government does everything possible to protect me.
All of us want to make sure that the risk of corruption in the defense and security sector are at the lower level. It is difficult for me to imagine another scenario in which I am, a taxpayer or a citizen, will be safe enough.
According to different sources, the military sector is the most corrupt one in the world because interests of different third parties and large amounts of money are involved. We, as taxpayers, are interested that people involved in this activity do not violate our own interests. We should not be aware of every issue, but we have to set the rules of the game and understand the main directions as well as to develop a clear vision. However, many procurement in the defense sector should not be marked “top secret” clearance. There are more and more examples when “top secret” clearance does not properly applied. Well, more and more specialists in the defense sector understand that transparency is an effective tool for the corruption prevention. If more suppliers are bidding for underwear or food for the military, it is much more probable to purchase these goods at lower prices and better quality. It means our military will feel better and it is very important question for us. Thus, it is clear that when we are speaking about underwear, there could be more than one manufacturer. I will give you an example of how the army has been involved into the “golden spoon” scandal. The army purchased overpriced cutlery for the military because the supplier found some drawbacks in the legislation. We know about this issue because some of the information was disclosed. The pressure from the public allowed us to stop the procurement process and begin the investigation. Hence, some things should be available to the public. When you know about corruption in such susceptible sectors as the defense sector, moral values of the population can getting worse, and it can ruin the belief that politicians and government officials really perform well. And if officials are serving poor for their country, in whose favor it works?
What lessons for our country the Lithuanian experience could give when we fight corruption in the defense and security sectors?
For many years, we have close relations with our colleagues in the Lithuanian Land Force (LLF), with the private sector, and associations of Lithuanian companies performing in this field. I am really glad that more and more private companies have to meet transparency standards. These measures help to promote corruption prevention and it could become an advantage for them. Although businesses pay little attention to this problem. At the same time, it becomes clear that a public company is a major player in the market. Therefore, politicians have everything they need to explain and prove that they value anti-corruption practices. The anti-corruption program of our government are sound well. It is good for us that the newly appointed the Minister of Defense plans to increase transparency of the Ministry including its procurement. These steps are important if the government needs to develop trust in the public sector for a long period of time. They may trust politicians and become their really genuine supporters, when they feel safe in their own country. For this reason, any scandal in the defense sector has negative consequences because people worry about getting the situation worse.
And now, when it seems to be a growing fear in the Baltic region that Russia could intervene?
The defense sector spending increases and continues to grow. And I believe the army leadership understands that increased spending leads to increased corruption risks. Not only because some official steal more money, but because unfair players can enter the national market. That is why we must make more effort to stop corruption. No, it is not a joke. It is better to foresee and prevent some issues and it is more difficult to solve an appeared problem. The army should pay more attention to such situations as well as other offices.
How do you communicate with LLF and do you need volunteers or community organizations in this office?
There is an inspection for anti-corruption matters. And, I believe, the army officials should be interested in such monitoring. The public can only ask some questions to clarify or offer advanced mechanisms for improvement. It is naive to think that the organization working from outside is the silver bullet which will kill a werewolf and solve all problems. A strong will of people within the office is the only factor of success.
How can you encourage civil servants to work fairly and honestly?
They should be concerned because they have to report their work, and their work will be assessed based on the objective criteria, so in case of misconduct they will be held responsible and face legal liability or their reputation can be spoiled. In Lithuania’s reputation is ever more important. The society expects resignation in case of some violations even if no lawsuits. In Lithuania, we consider it an important issue to have a specific and objective assessment criteria which has been used by business for a long period of time. Terms-resources-results – everything is quite simple. It is clear that some politicians prefer to avoid talks about it, but there will not be any other way out for officials but to be a part of the progressive trend. And there are more and more people who value results and specific measurable actions. We have to earn trust of these people. Traditional PR in newspapers or on the screen does not work well, and people want to make this change work for them. People are tired of waiting. In my opinion, this trend will only continue.
————————-
Sergejus Muravjovas has three degrees, including international law and political science. From 2006 to 2008 he was the project manager at Transparency International Lithuania. Since 2008, Sergejus Muravjovas was the Executive Director of the organization. As the Lithuanian representative, he was involved in the development of the Anti-Corruption Commission report. He lectures corporate governance and anti-corruption at the Vilnius University of Management and Economics.
