USAID's Laughable Webpage on Iraq Corruption "Success"

USAID is the "subsidiary" of the US State Dept. that implements "foreign aid" for the US in foreign countries. No other government agency has authority to do that without State Dept or USAID approval.

Below is the article USAID posted on their website about successful anti-corruption programs in Iraq. These efforts are entirely different from the Iraq Reconstruction Program Office (IRMO) establishment of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity that I helped set up. USAID did not date this page, but I think I originally saw it in 2005.

While I was there in 2004-2006, USAID used the term "anti-corruption" in several programs to ensure funding support, but I could never find details exactly what they did. In early 2004, they were caught by the CPI founder trying to use the CPI plan from IRMO as the basis for justifying their own programs. The reason is that USAID has no "subject matter experts" in technical areas like corruption, rule of law, agriculture, etc. Instead, they have generalist former Peacecorp and State Dept. workers who have no technical background, thus they circulate requests for spending program proposals with generic terms like "anti-corruption" and ask vendors to submit programs. Then they choose a program, typically from a favored vendor who probably doesn't have any better technical skills. Just like that, they get $50-million programs or more and then try to figure out how to spend it after the program starts of specific programs THEY want to accomplish, not necessarily what the approved program objectives said.

I also found out that USAID is very skilled at knowing how funding works, so immediately after they get a program authorized by Congress or authorizers, they "commit" the entire amount, such as $50-million in a signed contract so that the funds cannot be cut. Although the funds have not been spent, or even a plan written in detail how to spend it, they have locked in the entire amount legally with a master contract with a vendor. I found that out because we knew they had a $250-million program that included about $50-million for "capacity development" which means training programs. The IRMO Director said it had not been spent yet, so I should ask them for a chunk for a $10-million management training program for senior officials in the 28 Iraqi Ministries who had no training in basic management, supervision, budgeting, etc. However, USAID refused to "share" the funds, saying it was all contracted for. 6-months later I sat in a meeting where the new program manager for that $50-million was asking us for ideas on where to spend it. However, they had specified the funds could only be spent on local government entities like towns, etc. and not the central government. Thus they spent it using favored vendors to give courses on "transparency" and "democracy building" and "women's rights" to local groups far outside the ruling central government. Because of the decentralized approach, and the risks from terrorists, they "took the word" of training providers, and had NO DOCUMENTATION to show who got the training, testing results, etc. That is how USAID spends taxpayer funds.

Finally, I have to comment on their statements below:

1) USAID's statement they launched a "national anti-corruption campaign" - that is the one I discussed above - it was very basic training in local cities and was NOT National because they completely avoided providing any training, etc. to the central government, including all the Ministries. USAID shoud NOT be allowed to claim credit for "anti-corruption" programs because they were very generic, and they would/could not provide me any evidence when I asked on behalf of the IRMO End State Task Force for evidence of what the program accomplished for some $50-million.

2) USAID's sponsorship of a "National conference on transparency and accountability...". I remember reading this when I was in Iraq, so I asked the USAID group to furnish me with the details of the "15 recommendations..." and got a list of very generic topics to be included in the Constitution... it was something I could have written at the dinner table and was very sophmoric.

It is my opinion, verified with discussions with others in Iraq, that USAID's liberal mind bent was focused on their own liberal causes like women's rights, democracy building, etc. and would use any buzz word they could, like "anti-corruption" to obtain approval for programs they wanted, but had little relation to the buzz words used.

They reacted in the same way regarding other programs run by IRMO, including mini-loan programs, agriculture, etc. where they had a large public relations effort to claim credit for programs initiated and implemented by the IRMO people with separate Iraq Reconstruction programs.
vj
======================================

from
http://www.usaid.gov/stories/iraq/ss_iraq_anti-corruption.html

Anti-corruption campaign promotes transparency in Iraq
Iraqi Communities Fight Corruption

Recognizing that transparency and accountability are critical to democratic governance, USAID launched a national anti-corruption campaign in collaboration with civil society organizations. The campaign included training for officials, survey polls, legislative advocacy, educational posters, and mobile theaters. So far, the results have been very positive.

First, USAID sponsored a national conference on transparency and accountability during the drafting of Iraq’s constitution. The conference yielded 15 recommendations that were incorporated into the constitution, including an article that holds ministers accountable for their actions and another that creates an independent auditing body.

Second, the program sponsored surveys to understand the needs and priorities of Iraqi citizens. One USAID-funded survey by the al Rafhaa Organization found that 33 percent of Iraqis consider transparency and accountability the most important attributes in a political candidate. Regarding national priorities, 25 percent of Iraqis considered stopping corruption a high priority, second only to the 38 percent who listed security as their top priority. Other surveys have helped monitor corruption within organizations and government bodies, revealing areas where accountability needs to be improved.

Finally, the program’s efforts in voter education, community dialogue, and constitutional development helped expand public awareness and participation in the January 2005 election and the October 2005 constitutional referendum.

USAID’s civil society programs focus on civic education, anti-corruption, and human rights. USAID has established resource centers to deliver training and technical assistance to Iraqi civil society organizations and provided small grants to support advocacy and public awareness campaigns. Through focused training and technical assistance, USAID is helping to build an informed, sustainable, and active civil society that will be key to routing out corruption, holding the government accountable, and building a prosperous and democratic Iraq.