VZCZCXRO3733
RR RUEHBC RUEHDA RUEHDE RUEHIHL RUEHKUK
DE RUEHGB #0861/01 0891203
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 301203Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2453
INFO RUCNRAQ/IRAQ COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BAGHDAD 000861 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR INL/C/CP, INL/I, NEA/I, S/I 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KCOR PGOV KDEM IZ
SUBJECT: GLOBAL INTEGRITY LOOKS AT THE POSITIVE ELEMENTS IN 
THE GOI ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS 
 
REF: BAGHDAD 513 
 
 ¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  When discussing anti-corruption efforts 
with Iraqi officials, they frequently refer to the 2008 
Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI), 
rating Iraq as tied for second with Myanmar for the most 
corrupt country, as an unfair and unrealistic representation 
of the GOI's anti-corruption efforts.  In February 2009, 
Global Integrity released its Integrity Indicators report 
(reftel).  Iraq rated in the "Very Weak" category along with 
the other four Arab countries, plus the West Bank, that were 
surveyed.  Iraq ranked virtually on par with Egypt and places 
ahead of, in order, the West Bank, Morocco, and Yemen. Using 
data obtained through public testimony, official reports, and 
the Iraqi constitution and laws to construct an analysis of 
anti-corruption mechanisms and government accountability, the 
Global Integrity Report (GIR) presents a different rating 
structure, assessing integrity and measuring the framework 
available for fighting corruption, not the extent of the 
problem itself.  This report's rating scores ranged from a 
high of 100 down to zero.  Summarizing some key areas, Iraq 
scored 100 on a number of specific questions regarding 
institutions and laws, though when asked related inquiries 
about enforcement, effectiveness, or citizen access to 
information regarding the provision discussed, the scores 
plummeted.  Based on the GIR indicators, Iraq already has a 
positive and defined legal and constitutional framework in 
which to work.  It is up to the Iraqis to use this framework 
and build a system which follows the content and intent of 
the laws and constitution to fight and reduce corruption 
through increased transparency, accountability, and 
enforcement.   END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (U)  In February 2009, Global Integrity (GI) released its 
annual Global Integrity Report (GIR), covering 46 mostly 
developing countries, including for the first time, Iraq. 
Overall, it presents a more comprehensive and positive 
statement of those areas in which Iraq does have the legal 
and institutional foundations for an anti-corruption regime 
than the often cited Transparency International (TI) 
Corruption Perception Index (CPI) ranking Iraq tied for 
second as the world's most corrupt country (with only Somalia 
ranked lower).  Iraqi interlocutors critically question their 
poor rating on the CPI.  TI asked questions related to ex-pat 
Iraqis and foreign subjects' perceptions of the extent of 
government corruption, the likelihood of encountering corrupt 
officials, and the scale of bribery.  They did not survey 
subjects resident in Iraq.  The GIR depended more on experts' 
documents, legal and constitutional material, press reports, 
and official testimony. 
 
¶3.  (U)  Although in the GIR's final analysis Iraq still 
rates in the "Very Weak" category along with the other four 
Arab countries, plus the West Bank, that were surveyed. Iraq 
ranked virtually on par with Egypt and places ahead of, in 
order, the West Bank, Morocco, and Yemen.  The (GIR) is 
neither a poll nor a survey.  It is an index that assesses 
capacity, not corruption, actions, or the extent of the 
problem.  As stated in the GI methodology White Paper, "GI 
quantitatively assesses the opposite of corruption, that is, 
the access that citizens and businesses have to a country's 
government, their ability to monitor its behavior, and their 
ability to seek redress and advocate for improved 
governance."  The Integrity Scorecard covers existing public 
integrity mechanisms, e.g., laws and institutions, their 
Qintegrity mechanisms, e.g., laws and institutions, their 
effectiveness, and citizen access. The report highlights 
Iraq's strengths in its legal and constitutional framework, 
giving positive credit where due, while tempering those 
scores with a realistic assessment of the effectiveness and 
transparency of anti-corruption and other governmental 
agencies. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  The GIR rating scores ranged from a high of 100 
down to zero.  The ranking system defines five performance 
"tiers:" "Very Strong" 90 or above; "Strong" 80-89; 
"Moderate" 70-79; "Weak" 60-69; and "Very Weak" below 60. 
Summarizing some key areas, Iraq scored 100 on a number of 
specific questions, though when asked related inquiries about 
enforcement, effectiveness, or use of the provision 
discussed, the scores plummeted.  For example, in the GIR, 
the statement that the media and free speech are protected 
rated a score of 100.  (Note:  This statement has been 
challenged by embassy officers citing Iraq's criminal libel 
laws.  End note.).  However, the report then notes Iraq ranks 
at zero when it asks if journalists are safe when 
investigating corruption and if the public has access to 
information.  The score for having an election monitoring 
agency was 100; the scores for regulations covering financing 
political parties or individual candidates and the public's 
 
BAGHDAD 00000861  002 OF 002 
 
 
access to financial records ranged from 14 (referring to the 
regulations) to zero for all related issues.  The GIR gave 
Iraq 100 for giving its citizens the right to sue the 
government for infringement of their civil rights.  (Note: 
To date, no Iraqi has ever prevailed in such a suit.  End 
note.).  Iraq rated zero on the question of citizens' access 
to MPs' asset disclosure records, while scoring 67 when 
asking if members of the legislature could be held 
accountable for their actions.  The judicial accountability 
questions received positive scores ranging from 83, that 
judges are appointed fairly, to 42 that judges can be held 
accountable for their actions.  Civil service regulations 
received 100 points for the national regulations in place, 
but a score of 28 when asked if the law governing the 
administration and civil service is effective.  The GOI rated 
100 for having an internal mechanism through which civil 
servants can report corruption, 13 for its effectiveness, and 
25 when asked if employees are protected when reporting 
corruption.  There is a national supreme audit institution 
(the Board of Supreme Audit), which rated 100 points, (Note: 
The BSA has often been less than open in its actual 
performance and anecdotal evidence indicates a likely lesser 
score.  End note.), but noted citizens' access to this 
institution's reports rated zero. 
 
¶5.  (U)  Specific anti-corruption indicators received 
variable scores from 100 to 25, with one indicator at zero. 
The existence of legislation criminalizing corruption earned 
an 89.  The presence of an agency (or group of agencies) with 
a legal mandate to address corruption scored 100.  The 
effectiveness of the anti-corruption agency (or agencies) 
came in at 33 and citizens' access to these agencies scored 
¶38.  There is legislation protecting the anti-corruption 
agencies from political interference, but because in practice 
there is political interference, that indicator received a 
score of 25.  The indicator scoring zero asks if the head of 
an anti-corruption agency is protected from removal without 
relevant justification.  Other indicators of agencies' 
effectiveness, e.g., they receive regular funding, make 
appointments based on professional criteria, publish regular 
public reports, possess sufficient power to carry out their 
mandates, and citizens can complain to the anti-corruption 
agencies without fear of recrimination all garnered a 25. 
The ability of these agencies to independently initiate 
investigations and act on complaints in a reasonable time 
both rated a score of 50. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  COMMENT:  The GIR is a tool that measures legal 
and institutional frameworks of government, not performance 
or levels of corruption.  While it emphasizes GOI strengths, 
it can be used as a guide to prioritize governance challenges 
as it also highlights the areas of the GOI anti-corruption 
framework most in need of reform.  The GIR makes no pretense 
of being a comprehensive and systematic gathering of data; it 
is an in-depth analysis of information available to the 
public and it relies on disparate and sometimes 
uncorroborated or outdated reports, testimony, or data from 
open sources.  The TI's CPI is a tool measuring ex-pat Iraqi 
and foreigners' confidence in Iraqi governmental 
institutions, done at a time of uncertainty over the security 
situation in Iraq.  Even though the GIR gave Iraq an overall 
"Very Weak" rating, the format and methods used avoid the 
type of single ranking design used in the CPI that so 
stigmatized Iraq by its low rating.  What is clear, based on 
Qstigmatized Iraq by its low rating.  What is clear, based on 
the GIR's results, is that Iraq already has defined legal and 
institutional frameworks through which it can fight 
corruption.  It is up to the Iraqis to use this framework and 
build a system which follows the content and intent of the 
laws and the constitution to reduce corruption through 
increased transparency, accountability, and enforcement.  END 
COMMENT. 
 
BUTENIS