KLEPTOCRACY

Kleptocratic Regimes and National Security: A Pervasive Threat and How it Can be Neutralized

Pin it

Convened by the TraCCC Center at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University

Kleptocratic regimes abscond with nation­al assets and use those assets against both their own cit­i­zens and the United States and its allies. The nation­al secu­ri­ty impli­ca­tions of this glob­al phe­nom­e­non are wide rang­ing, over­lap­ping, and poor­ly rec­og­nized. On November 15, 2017 George Mason University’s Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center spon­sored a con­fer­ence on this issue that was host­ed by Hudson Institute. It had two objec­tives:

  •   To iden­ti­fy and raise aware­ness about the vast array of threats that are caused or exac­er­bat­ed by klep­toc­ra­cies. These include great pow­er com­peti­tors, nuclear aspi­rants, ter­ror­ism, orga­nized crime, state fail­ure, geno­cide, and obstruc­tion of peace and sta­bil­i­ty oper­a­tions.
  •   To pro­pose and obtain feed­back on rec­om­men­da­tions for respond­ing to this threat.

I there­fore deter­mine that seri­ous human rights abuse and cor­rup­tion around the world con­sti­tute an unusu­al and extra­or­di­nary threat to the nation­al secu­ri­ty, for­eign pol­i­cy, and econ­o­my of the United States.

On Dec 21, 2017 President Trump issued an “Executive Order Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption,” in which he pro­claimed:

I there­fore deter­mine that seri­ous human rights abuse and cor­rup­tion around the world con­sti­tute an unusu­al and extra­or­di­nary threat to the nation­al secu­ri­ty, for­eign pol­i­cy, and econ­o­my of the United States, and I here­by declare a nation­al emer­gency to deal with that threat.1

Given that cor­rup­tion and human rights abus­es (the most extreme form of which is geno­cide) have now been pro­claimed a nation­al emer­gency, our first pur­pose has essen­tial­ly been met by oth­er means. The sec­ond pur­pose thus becomes the para­mount con­tri­bu­tion of this report: to pro­vide vet­ted and action­able rec­om­men­da­tions for neu­tral­iz­ing this threat.

The Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) was also pub­lished short­ly after this con­fer­ence was con­duct­ed. In Pillar I, “Protect the American People, the Homeland, and the American Way of Life,” the NSS artic­u­lates the nation’s gravest threats, which include weapons of mass destruc­tion, specif­i­cal­ly ref­er­enc­ing North Korea, Russia, China, and Iran.2 The klep­to­crat­ic nature of these regimes is dis­cussed below, and this point was rein­forced in a Dec 18 announce­ment by White House home­land secu­ri­ty advis­er Thomas Bossert that “…the U.S. today pub­licly attrib­ut­es the mas­sive “WannaCry” cyber­at­tack to North Korea.”3

A con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous report claims that the pro­ceeds from this hack­ing are “like­ly being spent advanc­ing North Korea’s devel­op­ment of nuclear weapons.” The same report also cites Bossert as “call­ing out the ’bad behav­ior’ by oth­er coun­tries, includ­ing what he called the ‘cor­rupt regime’ of Tehran.”4 The NSS goes on to state that “The pri­ma­ry transna­tion­al threats Americans face are from jihadist ter­ror­ists and transna­tion­al crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tions.” 5 The NSS implic­it­ly links this threat to failed states and pro­tract­ed con­flicts that are insti­gat­ed or per­pet­u­at­ed by klep­to­crat­ic regimes stat­ing that “…they thrive under con­di­tions of state weak­ness and prey on the vul­ner­a­ble as they accel­er­ate the break­down of rules to cre­ate havens from which to plan and launch attacks on the United States, our allies, and our partners.”6

Kleptocratic regimes are not an added threat that is com­pet­ing in a zero-sum man­ner for scarce nation­al secu­ri­ty resources; rather they are a cross- cut­ting nation­al secu­ri­ty threat that either caus­es or con­tributes deci­sive­ly to the threat actors already iden­ti­fied by the Trump Administration.

Taken togeth­er, President Trump’s dec­la­ra­tion that cor­rup­tion and human rights abuse con­sti­tute a nation­al emer­gency and the cat­a­logue of threats iden­ti­fied in the NSS have rec­og­nized all of the top­ics

Kleptocratic regimes are not an added threat that is com­pet­ing in a zero-sum man­ner for scarce nation­al secu­ri­ty resources; rather they are a cross- cut­ting nation­al secu­ri­ty threat that either caus­es or con­tributes deci­sive­ly to the threat actors already iden­ti­fied by the Trump Administration.

dis­cussed in this report (i.e., great pow­er com­peti­tors, nuclear aspi­rants, ter­ror­ism, orga­nized crime, state fail­ure, geno­cide, and obstruc­tion of peace and sta­bil­i­ty oper­a­tions). The cen­tral les­son that should be derived is that klep­to­crat­ic regimes are not an added threat that is com­pet­ing in a zero-sum man­ner for scarce nation­al secu­ri­ty resources; rather they are a cross-cut­ting nation­al secu­ri­ty threat that either caus­es or con­tributes deci­sive­ly to the threat actors already iden­ti­fied by the Trump Administration.

Our first order of busi­ness is to cat­a­logue why klep­to­crat­ic regimes con­sti­tute a per­va­sive threat to nation­al secu­ri­ty. Our sec­ond pur­pose is to pro­pose rec­om­men­da­tions for neu­tral­iz­ing this threat by being smarter about how we deal with it. These argu­ments are sum­ma­rized below.

Kleptocratic Regimes: A Pervasive Threat to National Security

● Russian/Chinese klep­toc­ra­cy, a sys­temic threat, and the gen­er­al sys­temic threats posed by klep­to­crat­ic regimes

One of the great­est threats to U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty is the cor­ro­sive impact of klep­toc­ra­cy on geopo­lit­i­cal order. Kleptocracy and finan­cial secre­cy have metas­ta­sized into an exis­ten­tial threat to our civ­i­liza­tion. Vladimir Putin has “weaponized” use of cor­rup­tion for geopo­lit­i­cal ends. The con­ver­gence of cor­rupt val­ues and prac­tices in the for­mer Soviet Union, refor­mu­lat­ed for the 21st cen­tu­ry and export­ed to the West, now pose an encom­pass­ing threat. The eco­nom­ic pow­er of klep­to­crats like Putin is safe­guard­ed in the West by our lack of trans­paren­cy regard­ing the real own­ers of cor­po­ra­tions which allows klep­to­crats to laun­der their illic­it rev­enue in shell com­pa­nies. We must address these threats by enhanc­ing trans­paren­cy and clos­ing off our finan­cial sys­tem to those intent on dam­ag­ing our coun­try.

● Kleptocracy and the Link to Terrorism, Radicalization, Fragile States, and Political Instability

Inherent in the nature of klep­toc­ra­cies is mas­sive diver­sion of pub­lic funds for pri­vate gain. The con­se­quences – inad­e­quate resources for pub­lic ser­vices, de-legit­imiza­tion of the regime, and repres­sion of dis­sent – fuel rad­i­cal­iza­tion, state fragili­ty, and con­flict. Extremist groups draw on pub­lic anger at the abuse of pow­er. Prominent cur­rent exam­ples include the Houthi rebels in Yemen, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and Boko Haram in Nigeria. The most salient cas­es where klep­toc­rac­tic actors have posed a clear threat to U.S. counter-ter­ror­ism and sta­bi­liza­tion efforts are Afghanistan and Iraq. Systemic and high-lev­el cor­rup­tion – with­in gov­ern­ments we sup­port­ed and fund­ed – fun­neled rev­enue out of the domes­tic econ­o­my, fur­ther impov­er­ished the coun­try, hol­lowed out secu­ri­ty insti­tu­tions, under­mined the legit­i­ma­cy of the state, and fueled recruit­ment by insur­gent and ter­ror­ist groups. Kleptocracy also has eco­nom­ic effects that slow growth, there­by under­cut­ting polit­i­cal sta­bil­i­ty. Corruption dis­torts mar­kets by adding costs and cre­at­ing inef­fi­cien­cies, and it deters Foreign Direct Investment.

● The “Convergence” among ter­ror­ism, orga­nized crime, cor­rup­tion and illic­it pow­er struc­tures

The con­ver­gence of ter­ror­ism, orga­nized crime, cor­rup­tion, and illic­it pow­er struc­tures con­sti­tutes an alter­na­tive, par­a­sitic, glob­al polit­i­cal econ­o­my that rep­re­sents an exis­ten­tial threat to soci­eties based on the rule of law. Their effects have been exac­er­bat­ed by the dra­mat­ic increase in the flow of goods and ser­vices, mon­ey, peo­ple, and data that have result­ed from glob­al­iza­tion. Terrorists and crim­i­nals take advan­tage of these same flow paths and are able to do so invis­i­bly as their trans­ac­tions are lost in the over­whelm­ing vol­ume of lic­it and illic­it trans­ac­tions. There is an increas­ing lev­el of orga­ni­za­tion­al col­lu­sion between inter­na­tion­al ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions, orga­nized crime and net­worked insur­gen­cies (e.g., Hezbollah and the Sinaloa car­tel). This threat is com­pound­ed by the col­lu­sion of “mafia states” that uti­lize the tra­di­tion­al tools of state­craft, such as pass­ports, air­line and ship­ping reg­istries, and diplo­mat­ic pouch­es, to pro­vide free pas­sage to engage in crim­i­nal activ­i­ty.

● Criminalized Power Structures: Leading Spoilers of Peace and Stability Operations

Criminalized pow­er struc­tures, defined as regimes that obtain and main­tain pow­er through exploita­tion of illic­it rev­enue, have been respon­si­ble for obstruct­ing or thwart­ing peace process­es in at least 70% of the inter­nal con­flicts in which the United Nations has inter­vened since 1990.7 When the U.S. has been involved–and this has includ­ed both peace and sta­bil­i­ty operations–the fig­ure ris­es to 100% (i.e., Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq). Both the U.S. and the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty chron­i­cal­ly over­look this prob­lem. In the ten case stud­ies exam­ined in Criminalized Power Structures: The Overlooked Enemies of Peace, almost five years elapsed before mis­sions had the man­date and means to mount a strat­e­gy to con­front their klep­to­crat­ic spoilers.8 Not only had the “gold­en hour” been squan­dered, the legit­i­ma­cy of the mis­sion had typ­i­cal­ly been severe­ly com­pro­mised. This is per­haps the most like­ly explana­to­ry fac­tor for the 50% rate of return to con­flict with­in five years after an inter­na­tion­al inter­ven­tion, as claimed by Kofi Annan.9

● Violent klep­toc­ra­cy as the source of geno­cide

Violent klep­toc­ra­cy” is a sys­tem of state cap­ture in which rul­ing net­works hijack gov­ern­ing insti­tu­tions for the pur­pose of loot­ing pub­lic cof­fers and nat­ur­al resource wealth. The state is thus trans­formed from an insti­tu­tion that is sup­posed to pro­vide social and edu­ca­tion­al ser­vices and employ­ment oppor­tu­ni­ties for its cit­i­zens and to safe­guard the rule of law into a preda­to­ry crim­i­nal enter­prise that does quite the oppo­site. Ruling klep­to­crat­ic net­works uti­lize vio­lence to main­tain pow­er and repress dis­sent­ing voic­es lead­ing to a propen­si­ty for con­flicts to spi­ral out of con­trol and pre­cip­i­tate mass atroc­i­ties and geno­cide. Terrorist orga­ni­za­tions, mili­tias, and rebel groups can also con­trol ter­ri­to­ry and oper­ate in a sim­i­lar man­ner. The most promi­nent cur­rent exam­ples in Africa are South Sudan, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, and Somalia. Previous African con­flicts that have metas­ta­sized under the influ­ence of vio­lent klep­toc­ra­cies include Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone. In all cas­es, the result has been destabilized/ungoverned regions, human­i­tar­i­an crises, and gross human rights vio­la­tions that have fre­quent­ly led to mass atroc­i­ties and geno­cide.

Kleptocratic Regimes: How They Can Be Neutralized

The sine qua non for neu­tral­iz­ing the per­va­sive nation­al secu­ri­ty threat posed by klep­to­crat­ic regimes is to rec­og­nize the threat. Proper assess­ment and plan­ning are essen­tial. This requires the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the net­work of actors and their most vul­ner­a­ble nodes so that a com­pre­hen­sive strat­e­gy exploit­ing all the rel­e­vant tools at our dis­pos­al can be orches­trat­ed. The sec­ond require­ment is to craft effec­tive tools for attack­ing their cen­ter of grav­i­ty: access to the illic­it rev­enue that is vital to main­tain klep­to­crat­ic rule. To raise the cost of con­tin­u­ing to gov­ern in a preda­to­ry man­ner, klep­to­crats must be deprived of impuni­ty. Hybrid jus­tice insti­tu­tions, com­prised of both indige­nous and inter­na­tion­al personnel,10 are the means to accom­plish this. Finally, the admo­ni­tion to “do no harm” must be heed­ed. In our unseem­ly haste to pro­claim an exit strat­e­gy, all too often capac­i­ty build­ing for the secu­ri­ty sec­tor is regard­ed as the sim­plis­tic elixir. When the secu­ri­ty sec­tor is also an instru­ment of repres­sion for a klep­to­crat­ic regime, this only com­pounds the prob­lem. Recommendations for address­ing each of these piv­otal issues are sum­ma­rized below.

● Tailor assess­ment and plan­ning to the threat from klep­to­crat­ic regimes

A proven assess­ment method­ol­o­gy exists that was respon­si­ble for the suc­cess in Bosnia against the 3rdEntity Movement. It empha­sizes iden­ti­fy­ing both the for­mal and infor­mal com­po­nents of these per­ni­cious net­works and the “exchanges of pow­er” between them (e.g., illic­it rev­enue in exchange for impuni­ty from pros­e­cu­tion or repres­sion of oppo­si­tion). Identifying crit­i­cal nodes and enablers in these exchanges of pow­er and exploit­ing their vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty to pros­e­cu­tion are keys to devel­op­ing an effec­tive strat­e­gy.

● Pass ben­e­fi­cial own­er­ship leg­is­la­tion

The vehi­cle of choice for most klep­to­crats to dis­guise the source of their illic­it rev­enue is to set up cor­po­ra­tions where their iden­ti­ty is hid­den (i.e., shell com­pa­nies). The U.S. sets up near­ly two mil­lion cor­po­ra­tions a year, but none of the states requires that the own­ers be iden­ti­fied (known as ben­e­fi­cial own­er­ship). Federal leg­is­la­tion has recent­ly been intro­duced with broad bipar­ti­san sup­port to require dis­clo­sure of ben­e­fi­cial own­ers (i.e., the iden­ti­ties of who con­trols, has an own­er­ship inter­est in, or ben­e­fits from the cor­po­ra­tion).

Federal leg­is­la­tion has recent­ly been intro­duced with broad bipar­ti­san sup­port to require dis­clo­sure of ben­e­fi­cial own­ers (i.e., the iden­ti­ties of who con­trols, the cor­po­ra­tion.

● Use data sci­ence to com­bat kleptocracy’s threat to nation­al secu­ri­ty

Increases in com­put­ing pro­cess­ing pow­er and stor­age capa­bil­i­ty cou­pled with devel­op­ments in data sci­ence make pos­si­ble cre­ation of a com­pu­ta­tion­al­ly ana­lyz­able graph data­base that maps the net­works of pri­ma­ry klep­to­crat­ic tar­gets down to at least their first and sec­ond lev­el con­nec­tions. To dis­man­tle hubs of con­nec­tiv­i­ty, iden­ti­fy the nodes that con­tain the great­est degree cen­tral­i­ty and between­ness cen­tral­i­ty. Focus data sci­en­tif­ic efforts on sus­pi­cious pat­tern recog­ni­tion, anom­aly detec­tion, net­work ana­lyt­ics, and pre­dic­tive ana­lyt­ics. These tech­niques are use­ful for lead gen­er­a­tion, tar­get­ing, pre­emp­tive action, and evi­den­tiary analy­sis. For agen­cies tasked with com­bat­ting klep­toc­ra­cy, equip them with data sci­en­tists. Finally, National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 on “Integration, Sharing, and Use of National Security Threat Actor Information to Protect Americans” should be amend­ed to include klep­to­crat­ic regimes as threat actors.

● Create a data­base of Politically Exposed Persons and a pro­ce­dure for the U.S. Government (USG) to share analy­sis about them with finan­cial insti­tu­tions

There is a high prob­a­bil­i­ty that klep­to­crats will appear to the inter­na­tion­al finan­cial sec­tor as Politically Exposed Persons (PEP). A PEP is “…an indi­vid­ual who is or has been entrust­ed with a promi­nent function…many PEPs are in posi­tions that poten­tial­ly can be abused for the pur­pose of com­mit­ting mon­ey laundering…corruption and bribery, as well as…terrorist financing.11 Currently there is no require­ment for banks to pro­vide the data they col­lect about PEPs or their trans­ac­tions to any­one. An infor­ma­tion shar­ing pro­ce­dure should be estab­lished between the U.S. gov­ern­ment and finan­cial insti­tu­tions to enable secure exchange of infor­ma­tion and USG analy­sis about the trans­ac­tions of PEPsThe use and enforce­ment of pre­ci­sion-guid­ed pol­i­cy tools

Targeted sanc­tions (i.e., smart sanc­tions) and asset seizure have been unleashed with decid­ed impact against ter­ror­ists, transna­tion­al orga­nized crime, and nuclear pro­lif­er­a­tion. These tools need to be har­nessed for use against the neme­sis of klep­to­crat­ic regimes, since these nation­al secu­ri­ty threats are rou­tine­ly inter­twined. The U.S. can also lend sub­stan­tial weight to inter­na­tion­al regimes by invok­ing Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act against mon­ey laun­der­ing and the Global Magnitsky Act to counter klep­to­crat­ic regimes. Precision-guid­ed pol­i­cy tools include tar­get­ed sanc­tions focused on des­ig­nat­ing net­works more than indi­vid­u­als and the cre­ative use of sec­toral and sec­ondary sanc­tions. Sectoral sanc­tions can be tai­lored to vul­ner­a­ble nodes in klep­to­crat­ic net­works deny­ing trans­ac­tions in the U.S. finan­cial sys­tem to an entire sec­tor or sec­tors of the econ­o­my. “Secondary” sanc­tions can also be imposed on finan­cial insti­tu­tions that are enabling the illic­it activ­i­ties of klep­to­crats, allow­ing the denial of all or only a por­tion of the array of cor­re­spon­dent finan­cial ser­vices pro­vid­ed by the U.S. finan­cial sys­tem.

Targeted sanc­tions and asset seizure have been unleashed with decid­ed impact against ter­ror­ists, transna­tion­al orga­nized crime, and nuclear pro­lif­er­a­tion. These tools need to be har­nessed for use against the neme­sis of klep­to­crat­ic regimes.

● Use hybrid jus­tice insti­tu­tions to com­bat impuni­ty of klep­to­crats

When con­tem­plat­ing a prospec­tive inter­na­tion­al peace or sta­bil­i­ty oper­a­tion, the inter­na­tion­al com­mu­ni­ty has shack­led itself with a false dichoto­my between either com­plete­ly replac­ing the local legal sys­tem (i.e., exer­cis­ing full exec­u­tive author­i­ty) or mere­ly pro­vid­ing advice and assis­tance to devel­op its pro­fi­cien­cy (i.e., capac­i­ty build­ing). The pur­pose of this rec­om­men­da­tion is to expand the reper­toire to include an inter­me­di­ate “part­ner­ship” option involv­ing col­lab­o­ra­tive exer­cise of legal author­i­ty involv­ing inter­na­tion­al and care­ful­ly select­ed and assid­u­ous­ly pro­tect­ed judges, pros­e­cu­tors, police and cor­rec­tions offi­cials. For peace and sta­bil­i­ty oper­a­tions, the author­i­ty of this hybrid jus­tice insti­tu­tion would be lim­it­ed to crimes against the man­date. Hybrid jus­tice insti­tu­tions may also be a viable option for avert­ing state cap­ture.

● Accountability is essen­tial when build­ing capac­i­ty in the secu­ri­ty sec­tor

U.S. and oth­er donors involved in secu­ri­ty sec­tor capac­i­ty build­ing in a giv­en coun­try should devel­op a coor­di­nat­ed strat­e­gy that pro­vides equal weight to capac­i­ty build­ing and estab­lish­ing trans­par­ent and account­able secu­ri­ty sec­tors. To pro­vide clout, met­rics should be devel­oped for deter­min­ing whether account­abil­i­ty sys­tems are func­tion­ing, and they should be used annu­al­ly to review per­for­mance and real­lo­cate spend­ing as need­ed to address the most seri­ous account­abil­i­ty defi­cien­cies. An assess­ment of the risk that cor­rup­tion could pose to our capac­i­ty build­ing efforts needs to be con­duct­ed pri­or to inter­ven­tion, and poli­cies and pro­ce­dures should be imple­ment­ed to mit­i­gate the risk and ensure we “do no harm.”

Read more here… 

Tagged under:

Log In or Create an account