Corruption in Afghanistan offers lessons for billions going to Ukraine
WASHINGTON — Just last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy fired all two dozen regional military recruiters. Investigators found they were coming up with bogus documents to show a potential recruit was unfit for military duty. The price? $10,000 each.
And a few days later, the New York Times reported that a Ukrainian weapons dealer was inflating prices. This follows the dismissal of the chair of Ukraine's Supreme Court in May after being accused of taking millions of dollars in bribes. And before that Zelenskyy removed six deputy ministers and five regional administrators on charges of – you guessed it – corruption.
That's not all. Last fall the U.S. Agency for International Development's Dekeleptification Guide reported that costs for large scale state construction projects in Ukraine are inflated by 30 percent, including 10 percent kickbacks for government officials and their friends.
None of this comes as a surprise to Transparency International, which tracks corruption in government. It lists Ukraine as the second most corrupt state in Europe – after Russia.
Battling corruption
Zelenskyy and his aides say they are trying to turn things around, and point to their swift action against corrupt officials. But now there are calls in Congress to appoint a U.S. special inspector general for Ukraine, much like it did for Afghanistan.
Lawmakers point to both corruption and the scale of U.S. military, financial and humanitarian aid – which now stands at some $113 billion. And the Biden Administration has asked Congress for another $20 billion. The House-passed defense authorization bill calls for the creation of a inspector general for Ukraine; the Senate measure does not. That means the issue will be worked out in a conference committee.
NPR sat down with the current Inspector General for Afghanistan, John Sopko who just published his 60th quarterly report that includes lessons learned – for Ukraine.
One problem, he says, is the volume of money.
"Well, we tend to throw a lot of money at a problem and we ignore the fact that you overwhelm a country," Sopko says. "Now, in this case, in Ukraine, we're spending a lot of money on weaponry. And this isn't a bad thing. It needs to be done. But the warning bell is if you if you send too much money too fast and you don't have enough oversight, you're going to have wastage and other problems."
And of course another lesson for Ukraine, he says, is well known.
"The other issue is the corruption issue. That was something that was endemic in Afghanistan and it is endemic in Ukraine," he says. "Now, the good news is that the president of Ukraine and a number of people around him are trying to do something about the corruption. But it is problematic. We had warlords and oligarchs in Afghanistan. You got oligarchs in Ukraine right now. And so that's a big problem."
Sopko says besides the huge flow of money and the history of corruption, there are large numbers of people trying to help.
"The other big lesson to be learned is we approach these problems with what we call a whole of government approach," Sopko says. "That means we have multiple agencies. I think we have over 17 different agencies currently U.S. alone, currently operating in Ukraine. There are like 30 some countries operating in Ukraine. A number of international organizations. So you got the EU, you got all the EU countries. That is overwhelmingly confusing and it needs to be coordinated."
Sopko says it's not only important to coordinate, keep an eye on the money and how it's spent. But you can't do it from Washington, or London or Berlin or even Poland next door.
"We need people on the ground," Sopko says. "You cannot do oversight remotely. I don't care what people tell you. You cannot do it. Trust me. I've been doing this for almost 50 years."
Still, that could pose problems for investigators in a war zone where there are no U.S. military "boots on ground," like the American forces who assisted Sopko and his investigators as they traveled around Afghanistan. Ukraine, with its vast front-line, Russian air and missile strikes is far more hazardous.
A question of oversight
Sopko says there are now three U.S. inspectors general in Ukraine. One for the Pentagon, another for the State Department and still another for USAID. Each is looking at their own department.
That's why the White House opposes a special inspector general for Ukraine, saying in a statement last month there are "multiple investigations regarding every aspect of (U.S.) assistance."
"I mean, my experience is the more the merrier," Sopko says. "A special IG has jurisdiction to look at the whole of the government in the whole of governments. That's how they set up when special IGs are created. They can look at all agencies, any U.S. government agency operating in the country or the area of authority."
Looking back on Afghanistan and his work since 2012, was it successful?
"Well, those people we indicted got convicted," he said. "Those people who committed fraud that we could find, we punished them. Did it fail? Well, I didn't do the war fighting. We gave them the facts of what the problems were. You know, I can't do anything more than that. And no IG can do that. Our job is to present the facts and make recommendations on how to improve things."
9(MDAxODcyMTgzMDEyMTgxMTY5NjYxN2I4OQ004))
Transcript
MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
In its 20-years-long involvement in Afghanistan, the U.S. spent close to $1 trillion. Most of that money went to warfighting, but large amounts also just disappeared through fraud or theft. John Sopko tried to keep track while serving as the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction.
JOHN SOPKO: The only thing that really, probably, remains is the fact that we did influence a younger generation about the values of democracy, the values of a free and open society. And to that extent, that's the hope for the future.
MARTIN: Now, two years after the fall of Kabul, Washington is sending aid to another war front, this time in Ukraine. The latest White House proposal would push humanitarian and military support there to more than $130 billion. Our colleague Steve Inskeep asked Sopko what Washington should have learned from Afghanistan.
SOPKO: We tend to throw a lot of money at a problem. And we ignore the fact that you overwhelm a country. Now, in this case, in Ukraine, we're spending a lot of money on weaponry. And this isn't a bad thing. It needs to be done. But the warning bell is, send too much money too fast and you don't have enough oversight, you're going to have wastage and other problems.
The other issue is the corruption issue. That was something that was endemic in Afghanistan, and it is endemic in Ukraine. Now, the good news is that the president of the Ukraine and a number of people around him are trying to do something about the corruption. But it is problematic. We need people on the ground. You cannot do oversight remotely. I don't care what people tell you, you cannot do it. Trust me, I've been doing this for almost 50 years. You cannot do oversight remotely.
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Do you have reason to think that some meaningful percentage of U.S. aid to Ukraine is being misspent or stolen?
SOPKO: You can't spend that much money without there being waste, fraud and abuse. It's just as simple as that.
INSKEEP: If you're in the Biden administration, or really any administration, would you perhaps make a calculation that some waste is inevitable and does not matter? If, for example, you need to get $200 million to support the Ukrainian war effort and even only half of it is properly spent, well, it does some good. It does a lot of good. And it's an urgent situation.
SOPKO: Well, there is going to be wastage. There is going to be pilferage. The question is, how much is too much? And also, one of the problems is the amount of very sophisticated weapons that are going in that could be disappearing. We're spending $2.5 billion in military assistance per month. That's seven times what we spent in Afghanistan at the height. So the question is, where are all those weapons going to end up?
INSKEEP: Would you want there to be an inspector general for Ukraine as there was for Afghanistan?
SOPKO: Well, there are already, you know, three IGs there. My experience is, the more the merrier. Why wouldn't you have some additional support? What a great message that would send to the donor community, to the American contractors, to the international players, to the Ukraine if we created a special IG for Ukraine. We want an efficient way to spend our taxpayer dollars.
INSKEEP: Would you argue that your oversight succeeded in Afghanistan even though the overall mission seems to have failed?
SOPKO: Well, those people we indicted got convicted. Those people who committed fraud that we could find, we punished them. Did it fail? Well, I didn't do the warfighting. I can only bring a horse to water. Our job is to present the facts and make recommendations on how to improve things. But I can't take credit for the failure or the successes in Afghanistan. We just stated the facts and, you know, made the recommendations based upon them.
INSKEEP: John Sopko, special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. Thanks so much.
SOPKO: It's a pleasure, always a pleasure. Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
300x250 Ad
300x250 Ad