CORRUPTION ON EARTH
Some Countries Are Naughty and Some Are Nice … Sort Of.
by Dean Christopher
The 2002 Time Almanac lists “The 2001 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index,” a rottenness ranking of 91 world governments, according to Berlin-based Transparency International (TI).
This non-governmental organization (NGO) operates in big famous countries as well as understated ones like Azerbaijan; Burkina Faso; Cameroon (those exotic stamps with shirtless locals!); Gambia; Georgia (Tbilisi, not Atlanta); Kyrgyz Republic (office in downtown Bishkek); Mauretania (not the ship); Mauritius (not Mauretania); Niger and Nigeria; Trinidad & Tobago; Vanuatu; Yemen; Zimbabwe. They have people in Washington, and also a Palestinian office – although the way Israel is knocking down West Bank buildings, they’d probably be happier renting in Tel Aviv.
TI claims to be the only NGO devoted to combatting international corruption. Their sunny goal is to “bring civil society, business and governments together in a powerful global coalition.” Well, fine. Some 80-odd chapters strive “to curb both the supply and demand of corruption,” a challenge only slightly more difficult than curbing teenage demand for sex.
What does their survey reveal?
As expected, most of the world’s governments are seen as corrupt. On a scale from 10.0 (squeaky-clean) down to 0.0 (satanically decadent), about 2/3 of all countries surveyed lean seriously toward corruption. Malasia, at 5.0, maintains a curious yin-yang balance on the issue. (One might expect such moral equilibrium from neutral Switzerland (8.4) or Sweden (9.0).) There were many ties, especially among the lower scores. But not exclusively: Iceland and Singapore tied at 9.2; the U.S. and Israel at 7.6; Chile and Ireland at 7.5.
No “Axis of Evil” countries appear on the list. Perhaps TI feared that their evil would throw the marking curve off its axis. More likely, Iraq, Iran and North Korea discourage the presence of corruption-hunters.
So, who comes across as wonderful, and who gets the raspberry? Hats and earmuffs off to honorable little Finland, at 9.9 the least corrupt of all 91 countries surveyed! At the murky end of the spectrum is Bangladesh, with an almost supernaturally low 0.2, giving them the sad distinction of being perceived as the most corrupt nation on earth.
But not so fast, reader! Rush not to judgment. Easy enough to go “nyah nyah nyah” or make cruel jests like “How many Bangladeshis does it take to corrupt one Finn?”
Statistics never tell the whole story. TI studied 91 nations, at a time when the United Nations listed 189 member states – and some countries are not even in the U.N. Consequently, the Corruption Perceptions Index covers fewer than half the nations on the globe (albeit the half with most of Earth’s population, corrupt or otherwise).
Let’s be fair to Bangladesh. How would the 90-odd unlisted states have fared in the survey? Is it not possible that one, or some, or even all of them may have scored lower than Bangladesh – even conceivably an Absolute Zero (not one single uncorrupted soul in government)? In fact, who can say that, in an infinite universe, there cannot be a country so degenerate that it actually scores a negative number? (Of course, one could theoretically score higher than Finland, but it’s more fun to focus on moral decay.)
* * *
Ah, if only we could see ourselves as others see us! How does Bangladesh see itself? For the answer, we turn to the official Bangladesh government website, last revised on June 30, 1999. (We surmise that their webmaster has relocated and not been replaced.) The site depicts Bangladesh as a subtropical paradise for tourists, culture aficionados and investors; a cheery, happy land of handsome heroes developing the world’s next superpower.
They make no mention of the typhoons, floods, plagues and other disasters that sweep through the country every few hours, killing hundreds of thousands, overturning ferries, wiping out crops, floating oxen out to sea, leaving millions homeless, leveling the pest-tormented landscape to a mud-flatness that makes the Dead Sea look like the Bavarian Alps. They do not speak of flies the size of Springer Spaniels and crawling things that feed on Japanese compact cars.
Nor is there any hyperlink labeled Governmental Corruption, or National Bribery and Graft Statistics. Clearly, we must work for this story.
Very well, let’s begin with a peek at the government, and the juicy economy that supposedly spawns all this alleged corruption. We check out Prime Minister’s Office, click on Board of Investment. We are forwarded to a page that says only: “This domain is for sale. Please contact: info@ zedandzed .com .” For sale, eh? Hmmm.
Next we try Industrial Policy and find “This page is under construction.” So, presumably, is their industrial policy. At last we strike pay dirt at Ministry of Commerce, Export Promotion Bureau. Among their many exported products and commodities, we see:
“Fish, Shrimps, Sharkfins & Fishmaws, Animal Casings, Betel Leaves, Cotton Waste, Black Cumin Seed, Crude Fertilizer, Raw Jute … Tortoise & Turtles, Crabs, Duck Chest Feather, Crude drugs, Bamboo Poles, Rattans, Beeswax, Coir & Coir-Products, Human Hair, Hukka Nali, Horns & Hooves…”
Now we’re getting somewhere! The excitement of the chase builds. Like all cunning detectives, we ask ourselves the tough questions:
How does corruption affect the Fishmaw business, or traffic in Horns & Hooves? Who chooses which horns and hooves to harvest – and from which animals or devils? What backroom shennanigans corrupt the Duck Chest Feather trade? How are contracts really awarded for Animal Casings and Raw Jute? Did the Vegetable Casings people forget to bribe someone at the Ministry of Casings? Is there a Cooked Jute lobby? Who gets to handle Human Hair – and whose? Does Bangladesh export blonde hair? Leg hair? Nose hair? Finally, is Hukka Nali a product or a typographical error?
The website maintains a chilly silence on these issues, so we turn to Transparency International’s website for help. TI has a Bangladesh site, but it gives no details on the mechanics of in-country corruption. Perhaps their researchers value their lives. The site has a Corruption Hotline to report bribes and irregularities. Does anyone ever use it?
Elsewhere, TI’s Chairman, Peter Eigen, writes “The scale of bribe-paying by international corporations in the developing countries of the world is massive. Actions by the majority of governments of the leading industrial countries to curb international corruption are modest.”
Well, as it happens, TI’s donors include many of those “international corporations” and “governments of the leading industrial countries.” Right near the top of the alphabetical list is Arthur Andersen, the international accounting firm currently under criminal indictment for, um, corruption. A little farther down comes Enron Corporation, the former energy giant (and current energy dwarf) that was until recently entwined with Arthur Andersen. Uh-oh.
A partial list of other major donors: Bank of America; Bechtel; Boeing; BP Amoco; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Exxon-Mobil; Ford; General Electric; General Motors; Honeywell; IBM; Lockheed Martin; Merck; Motorola; PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP; Reliant Energy; Rockwell; Texaco and United Technologies.
Hey – they’re all companies that sell things to foreign governments. Could any of those be on the corruption list?
The following countries also contribute substantially to TI. Let’s check their Corruption Perception scores: Australia (8.5); Canada (8.9); Denmark (9.5); the United Kingdom (8.3); the Netherlands (8.8); Finland (9.9); France (6.7); Germany (7.4); Norway (8.6); Sweden (9.0); and Switzerland (8.4).
Wow! TI donor nations average 8.5 on the decency scale! Coincidence? Who can say? Who dares imply? Admittedly some of this seems a bit suspicious – but that could just be your reporter’s natural wariness kicking in. Decide for yourself.
But stay alert. If General Electric suddenly corners the world market on Horns & Hooves; if Bechtel gets heavily into Bangladeshi Hair or if you hear of a public offering on Transparency Hakka Nali, think it over. But be open-minded. The world is aflood with circumstantial evidence.
Come to think of it, that’s usually the only kind of evidence there is.
Footnote: There is no Finnish embassy in Dahka and no Bangladeshi embassy in Helsinki. What should we conclude from that?
* * *