The Wall Street Journal (USA)
The world's finance ministers descend on Washington this weekend for the annual meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. And true to type, bank officials and their media Boswells are doing their best to sweep the issue of corruption under the carpet. A letter from the bank published today on the preceding page illustrates the point.
The letter from external affairs vice president Marwan Muasher responds to our October 11 editorial "Smiling Past Corruption," which reported the conclusions of seven internal investigations into bank projects in Cambodia. The investigations, conducted by the bank's anticorruption unit (INT), revealed stunning levels of fraud, extortion, bid-rigging, bribe-taking and what the bank euphemistically calls "misprocurement" in nearly every aspect of the examined projects. Yet far from acting decisively to recover its stolen assets, debar corrupt companies and penalize the Phnom Penh government, the bank did what it could to return quickly to business as usual.
Mr. Muasher nonetheless insists "the World Bank is confronting corruption head on" in Cambodia, and we really wish we could believe him. In 2007, Transparency International ranked Cambodia 162 on its corruption perception index, next to such all-stars as the Central African Republic. In 2005, Cambodia was ranked 130; whatever the bank is doing doesn't seem to be helping.
Mr. Muasher also says "it was bank staff in Cambodia who first raised concerns about corruption in projects there." That is true in some cases though not all, but the real issue is how the bank responds once the nasty details are laid before it. Also slippery is his remark that the bank suspended the Cambodian government's "right to draw funds for three projects where [the bank] had identified problems." But seven projects were identified by INT as rife with corruption, and it would be good to know why the other four fell from the bank's radar screen.
Similar questions hang over the funds Mr. Muasher says were either cancelled by the bank ($2.5 million) or refunded to it by the Cambodians ($2.89 million). In a February letter to the Cambodian Finance Minister, James Adams, the bank's vice president for the East Asia and Pacific region, tallies the contract values of just five of the troublesome projects. His numbers add up to $12.2 million in contracts, of which $8.2 million had already been disbursed.
That ought to mean that at least $4 million dollars, not $2.5 million, should have been cancelled -- a discrepancy presumably explained by the bank's decision to shut down only three projects instead of five or seven. It also ought to mean that the Cambodians should have refunded $8.2 million, and not $2.89 million. Here the discrepancy is explained by an arrangement worked out by Mr. Adams (and described in his letter) to demand the "accelerated" repayment of only a portion of the funds. So what happened to the remaining $5.3 million? Our sources say that whenever the matter is raised at the bank, "the topic is changed."
These sums may seem small compared to the bank's grand moral ambitions. However, total bank lending to Cambodia between 2003 and 2006 was $220 million, and the INT lacked the resources to investigate every project. What the INT found -- one project after another corrupted root-to-branch -- was almost certainly symptomatic of what happens across the board.
Not to worry, adds Mr. Muasher, because Cambodia's government has "agreed to incorporate anti-corruption action plans" in the future. Thus the bank is resuming business as usual first, on the hope that the government keeps its promises. We'd have thought the better way to reduce corruption would be to withhold money until the government proves it will in fact do something.
The bank is ignoring some of its own not-so-distant experience here. In July 2003, the bank cancelled a portion of funds for a "demobilization project" -- involving the distribution of cash, free motorbikes and other goodies to former soldiers -- after the Cambodian government inflated the list of those who were supposedly eligible for the handouts. Yet by February 2005 all was forgiven, with Cambodia country director Ian Porter telling Associated Press that "the government has taken significant steps toward resolving these issues." Perhaps they were even "action plans."
In his letter, Mr. Muasher reminds us that Cambodia is still recovering from its 1970s genocide. All the more reason, then, for the bank to ensure that the money it spends goes to benefit the people of Cambodia, not corrupt middlemen. Its smooth assurances notwithstanding, the bank's behavior in Cambodia looks like a classic example of downplaying corruption as rapidly as possible so the bank can get on with shoveling ever more money out the door, regardless of results.
The letter from external affairs vice president Marwan Muasher responds to our October 11 editorial "Smiling Past Corruption," which reported the conclusions of seven internal investigations into bank projects in Cambodia. The investigations, conducted by the bank's anticorruption unit (INT), revealed stunning levels of fraud, extortion, bid-rigging, bribe-taking and what the bank euphemistically calls "misprocurement" in nearly every aspect of the examined projects. Yet far from acting decisively to recover its stolen assets, debar corrupt companies and penalize the Phnom Penh government, the bank did what it could to return quickly to business as usual.
Mr. Muasher nonetheless insists "the World Bank is confronting corruption head on" in Cambodia, and we really wish we could believe him. In 2007, Transparency International ranked Cambodia 162 on its corruption perception index, next to such all-stars as the Central African Republic. In 2005, Cambodia was ranked 130; whatever the bank is doing doesn't seem to be helping.
Mr. Muasher also says "it was bank staff in Cambodia who first raised concerns about corruption in projects there." That is true in some cases though not all, but the real issue is how the bank responds once the nasty details are laid before it. Also slippery is his remark that the bank suspended the Cambodian government's "right to draw funds for three projects where [the bank] had identified problems." But seven projects were identified by INT as rife with corruption, and it would be good to know why the other four fell from the bank's radar screen.
Similar questions hang over the funds Mr. Muasher says were either cancelled by the bank ($2.5 million) or refunded to it by the Cambodians ($2.89 million). In a February letter to the Cambodian Finance Minister, James Adams, the bank's vice president for the East Asia and Pacific region, tallies the contract values of just five of the troublesome projects. His numbers add up to $12.2 million in contracts, of which $8.2 million had already been disbursed.
That ought to mean that at least $4 million dollars, not $2.5 million, should have been cancelled -- a discrepancy presumably explained by the bank's decision to shut down only three projects instead of five or seven. It also ought to mean that the Cambodians should have refunded $8.2 million, and not $2.89 million. Here the discrepancy is explained by an arrangement worked out by Mr. Adams (and described in his letter) to demand the "accelerated" repayment of only a portion of the funds. So what happened to the remaining $5.3 million? Our sources say that whenever the matter is raised at the bank, "the topic is changed."
These sums may seem small compared to the bank's grand moral ambitions. However, total bank lending to Cambodia between 2003 and 2006 was $220 million, and the INT lacked the resources to investigate every project. What the INT found -- one project after another corrupted root-to-branch -- was almost certainly symptomatic of what happens across the board.
Not to worry, adds Mr. Muasher, because Cambodia's government has "agreed to incorporate anti-corruption action plans" in the future. Thus the bank is resuming business as usual first, on the hope that the government keeps its promises. We'd have thought the better way to reduce corruption would be to withhold money until the government proves it will in fact do something.
The bank is ignoring some of its own not-so-distant experience here. In July 2003, the bank cancelled a portion of funds for a "demobilization project" -- involving the distribution of cash, free motorbikes and other goodies to former soldiers -- after the Cambodian government inflated the list of those who were supposedly eligible for the handouts. Yet by February 2005 all was forgiven, with Cambodia country director Ian Porter telling Associated Press that "the government has taken significant steps toward resolving these issues." Perhaps they were even "action plans."
In his letter, Mr. Muasher reminds us that Cambodia is still recovering from its 1970s genocide. All the more reason, then, for the bank to ensure that the money it spends goes to benefit the people of Cambodia, not corrupt middlemen. Its smooth assurances notwithstanding, the bank's behavior in Cambodia looks like a classic example of downplaying corruption as rapidly as possible so the bank can get on with shoveling ever more money out the door, regardless of results.
4 comments:
Remember hun sen said, foreigner employees in Cambodia are all on a long vacation with pay. They suppose to help Cambodia get back on its feet, yet they are the one who is corrupt along with hun sen government. They work 2 to 3 hours a day with no real result. They make Cambodians work for them making reports, research, etc. with little pay while they drive around to cafe' and beaches. They get allowances to their aparttment, gas, car, food, etc., and salary just for being in Cambodia pretending to do work. Now, the truth comes out and they defend themselves furiously to make people think otherwise.
I think you are talking about the UN Expert Personnel. Yes, they are making big bucks (about 10k/month) + all paid expenses, a total value of about 150k/yr. This is similar to making 1.5million/yr in the US. They are the one that take a big bite out of the aids money.
Don't You know that donor's money feed the members of CPP too!
Not every CPP, only a few idiots in there who seek Hollywood lifestyle. I estimate we lost about 10% on that.
Also, FYI, not even a senior space shuttle scientist with over 30 years experience made anywhere near that type of money as the corrupted UN Expert. Do you know that?
Post a Comment