United States Institute of Peace • www.usip.org • Tel. 202.457.1700 • Fax. 202.429.6063

UNITED STates institute of peace

© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

“The end goal of fighting 

corruption in security sector 

reform is the professionalization of the work force. This 

includes creating decent work 

conditions for the police, 

military and bureaucrats in 

government institutions—

such as offering adequate 

salaries, providing a safe 

environment, and decreasing incentives in general 

for corruption.”

May 20, 2010 

Fighting Corruption in Security 

Sector Reform

Summary

•	 Corruption in the security sector damages society’s trust in the government. 

•	 Donors must coordinate on anti-corruption programs and make sure not to engage in 

corruption themselves.

•	 Corruption is highly political and context specific. 

•	 Fighting both high and low-levels of corruption should be a priority in security sector reform.

The Impact of Corruption 

Security sector reform (SSR) is a process of realigning the security establishment to be more attuned to the needs of society. The security sector includes the agencies that protect the state and 

its citizens from security threats; these bodies range from the operational actors (police and armed 

forces) to the managing institutions (ministries of interior, defense and justice). When the people 

who have pledged to protect society are the source of corruption, abusing entrusted power for 

private gain, the first casualty is reduced trust between society and government. Rebuilding trust 

between the military, police, and government, and those they are supposed to protect is critical. 

This involves fighting corruption at both the high and low-levels. 

High-Level Corruption 

High-level corruption involves substantial amounts of money and usually senior level officials. 

Economically, grand corruption leads to the funneling of scarce public resources away from critical 

development projects. In the security sector, corruption occurs most often in contracting and 

procurement. Procurement is a “high value–low frequency” occurrence, where deals for massive 

sums of money do not happen every day. As there is a tendency to overextend rules of secrecy and 

confidentiality in the security sector, citizens generally are unaware of the impact of this corruption 

on their lives. The impact of the drain of scarce public resources is real nonetheless. 

Beyond secrecy, another guise for grand corruption in procurement is subcontracting. The 

common practice of principal contractors operating through multiple subcontractors creates an 

“ostrich effect,” where the actual perpetrators of corruption are masked by a network of agents and 

subagents, providing cover for corrupt officials. Subcontractors may be located in various countries and may be protected by barriers of language, inadequate legal systems and special privilege. 

This situation can be made worse by the “revolving door” syndrome, as the implementation of 

Robert Perito

E-mail: rperito@usip.org

Phone: 202.429.4173

Madeline Kristoff

E-mail: mkristoff@usip.org

Phone: 202.429.4767

peaceBrieF32
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Fighting Corruption in Security Sector Reform

page 2 • PB 32 • May 20, 2010

large contracts is spread out over time allowing for payoffs and kickbacks to materialize long after 

the signing of the contract. Even if the official is fired for malfeasance, corrupt payouts from the 

contract may nevertheless continue in the future. 

In mid-2006, agents from the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), and the 

Departments of Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security and Justice initiated a lengthy joint investigation that broke up a multimillion dollar bribery scheme at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. While serving 

as a contracting officer, U.S. Army Major John Cockerham received more than $9 million in bribes 

from Defense Department contractors in exchange for awarding contracts paid with money from 

the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund. Cockerham was sent to federal prison for 17 1⁄2 years and 

was ordered to pay in restitution the amount he collected from awarding contracts for services 

to be delivered to troops in Iraq, including bottled water.1 The Justice Department prosecutor 

reported this as the largest Department of Defense corruption case in history. 

Low-Level Corruption

While grand corruption may grab the headlines, the effect of petty corruption on the social fabric 

of society is more damaging. Low-level corruption, characterized most often by the traffic cop asking for bribes on the street, undermines people’s trust in the political system, its institutions and its 

leaders. When police—who are the most visible symbol of government to society—are perceived 

as corrupt, it erodes the public confidence in government. Institutions lose legitimacy when they 

are misused for private advantage and fragile governments cannot afford this loss of trust. Citizens 

often do not see the impact of high-level corruption on their daily lives, but petty corruption is 

highly visible and constitutes a major obstacle to effective security sector reform. 

American police trainers in Afghanistan have said it is hard to determine which is a more daunting challenge: the few thousand Taliban insurgents or dealing with corruption so rife it deeply 

undercuts efforts to improve the police and has destroyed many Afghans’ faith in government.2

The result is a woefully ineffective Afghan police force and a frustrating lack of justice for Afghans. 

In contrast to the government’s exercise of authority, the law imposed by the Taliban is far more 

certain, quick and clear, if ruthless. Afghan popular support for the Taliban has swelled because the 

Afghan police engage in such petty corruption. According to Dennis Blair, former U.S. director of 

national intelligence, “Many Afghans perceive the police to be corrupt and more dangerous than 

the Taliban.”3

Culture and Context are Important

Norms and values are context bound and vary across cultures. This is particularly true concerning popular attitudes toward corruption. In some parts of the world, particularly in a context of 

poverty or conflict, allegiance to personal loyalties such as one’s family or ethnic, religious, or 

socioeconomic identity outweighs allegiance to the state or to abstract rules. What is considered 

ethically questionable or even corrupt behavior in the U.S. might be seen as social obligations or 

simply good manners in another country. Local counterparts may be shocked to learn that U.S. 

government regulations forbid U.S. officials from accepting payment by others for lunches or 

dinners that exceed a certain amount or that accepting small gifts from foreign counterparts might 

be considered as ethically questionable. 

It is important to understand the political context surrounding corruption as well. A strategy to 

fight corruption should fit the particular circumstances of a country, taking into account the nature 

of the corruption problem as well as opportunities and constraints for addressing it. For example, 

in Liberia, the price for getting the leaders of various warring factions to lay down their arms was to 
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Fighting Corruption in Security Sector Reform

page 3 • PB 32 • May 20, 2010

give them control over the government ministries for a two-year transition period before presidential elections. These former warlords took advantage of the short time provided to loot ministry 

resources and live extravagant lifestyles. The United Nations focused its efforts on organizing 

an election that terminated this transition period and brought a widely respected former World 

Bank official President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf to power. Subsequently, President Johnson-Sirleaf 

has adopted a number of innovative measures that provide for international oversight of ministry 

expenditures, but corruption remains a problem. 

Fighting Corruption

In post-conflict environments, pervasive corruption exacerbates a broad range of problems 

and presents international donors with daunting challenges. There are steps that can be taken, 

however, to address corrupt practices. First, there must be a clear idea of what constitutes corruption in a given country. An assessment of the extent, form and causes of corruption in the country 

must also look at the political will for anti-corruption reform in the government and civil society. It 

is important for donors to articulate a common set of standards for an anti-corruption strategy that 

fits the host country’s political will and cultural context. 

International donors must also ensure that foreign firms, nongovernmental organizations 

and domestic officials are not engaging in corruption. Revelations that some American firms 

and representatives, including military officers, were involved in large-scale corruption in Iraq 

undermined U.S. credibility and made it more difficult for the U.S. to demand that Iraqi authorities 

control corruption within the Iraq government. The U.S. embassy’s anti-corruption working group 

reported that Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki protected corrupt officials by reinstating a law that 

prevents the prosecution of a government official without the permission of the minister of the 

relevant agency. Between September 2006 and February 2007, Iraqi ministers used this law to 

block the prosecutions of 48 corruption cases involving a total of $35 million. 

To fight petty corruption, SSR programs should make certain that ministerial reform includes 

measures that ensure that rank and file police officers receive their salaries, and that police families 

have access to appropriate housing, schooling and medical care. Programs that provide for officer 

welfare reduce the need for police officers to engage in petty corruption and instead provide incentives for proper behavior, especially if there are clear opportunities for merit-based promotions 

and advanced training. It is also important that police officers understand legal standards and are 

fully briefed on the codes of ethics, operational guidelines and the consequences for breaking the 

rules. There should also be internal accountability mechanisms—an inspector general or internal 

affairs office—within the police department as well as external citizen review boards to deal with 

citizen complaints and officer misconduct. 

The end goal of fighting corruption in security sector reform is the professionalization of the 

work force. This includes creating decent work conditions for the police, military and bureaucrats 

in government institutions—such as offering adequate salaries, providing a safe environment, and 

decreasing incentives in general for corruption. Increasing wages alone will not prevent corruption, but police and military personnel must have a baseline salary level where they at least have 

the opportunity to take care of themselves and their families. If police are not taken care of, it is 

unreasonable to expect they will behave appropriately. Increasing salaries to a living wage is one 

of many anti-corruption measures to decrease the incentives for engaging in illegal behavior. 
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

202.457.1700

www.usip.org

About This Brief

This report is based on a February 

25, 2010 panel presentation 

and the views expressed on 

fighting corruption in SSR during 

a meeting of the Security Sector 

Reform Working Group. The panel 

consisted of Raymond Gilpin, 

vice president of the Center for 

Sustainable Economies at USIP, 

Rachel Nield, legal adviser at the 

Open Society Justice Initiative, 

former Chief of Police Michael 

Berkow (retired), president of 

Altegrity Security Consulting, and 

Alex Berg, a USIP peace scholar. 

Robert Perito, director of USIP’s 

Security Sector Governance Initiative, moderated the panel. 

USIP provides the analysis, training and 

tools that prevent and end conflicts, 

promotes stability and professionalizes 

the field of peacebuilding.

For media inquiries, contact the office 

of Public Affairs and Communications, 

202.429.4725

Recommendations

•	 Understand the culture and political context. Ensure that anti-corruption programs are 

consistent with local standards and political will. 

•	 Consider fighting corruption in SSR a top priority. Corruption is happening at a cost that 

fragile countries and economies cannot afford. 

•	 Clarify measures of success for external oversight bodies and maintain internal accountability for corrupt behavior. 

•	 Focus on officer welfare, including the daily pressures that influence decision-making. 

•	 Address low and high-level corruption simultaneously. 

Endnotes

1. “Army Officer, Wife, and Relatives Sentenced in Bribery and Money Laundering Scheme 

Related to DOD Contracts in Support of Iraq War.” U.S. Department of Justice, December 2, 2009. 

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2009/252618.htm

2. Richard Oppel. “Corruption Undercuts Hopes for Afghan Police.” The Washington Post, April 8, 2009.

3. “U.S. Sees Taliban Spreading But Signs of Afghan Hope.” Reuters, February 2, 2010. http://www.

alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02100407.htm

Fighting Corruption in Security Sector Reform

page 4 • PB 32 • May 20, 2010