Saithan
MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2010
- Messages
- 3,771
- Reaction score
- 1
29 January 2013 /BETÜL AKKAYA DEMİRBAŞ, ANKARA
Turkey would probably not be chided by an international anti-corruption watchdog for lacking adequate safeguards to prevent corruption in its defense sector if it enjoyed stronger laws to boost transparency and had a commission in Parliament to audit military expenditures, according to some prominent defense experts.
Lack of transparency [in state institutions] in Turkey is a long-standing problem. The defense sector, in particular, is not transparent; it is hard to audit expenditures in the sector, Ümit Kardaş, a retired military judge, told Today's Zaman when commenting on the findings of a most recent survey by Transparency International UK.
According to the watchdog, Turkey is among the top arms importers, along with India, Thailand and several other countries, which are considered to be at a high risk of corruption in their defense sectors. The organization said on Tuesday that more than two-thirds of countries, including many of the world's largest arms traders, have inadequate safeguards to prevent corruption in their defense sectors.
Germany and Australia are the only countries out of 82 surveyed with strong anti-corruption mechanisms, according to what the watchdog says is the first index measuring how governments counter corruption in defense.
Among the top arms importers, five countries -- India, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Thailand and Turkey -- are in the high-risk category. China, Russia and Israel, all leading arms exporters, are also considered to be at a high risk of corruption in their defense sectors, according to the survey.
The 82 countries surveyed account for 94 percent of global military expenditure in 2011, worth $1.6 trillion.
Transparency International UK said 57 of the countries had poor controls against corruption. The organization rated governments by criteria, such as the strength of parliamentary oversight of defense policy and the standards expected of defense firms.
The findings of the survey were not surprising for Kardaş, though.
The latest law on the Court of Accounts and the court's reluctance to send audit reports to Parliament [for examination] are proof of the fact that expenditures at state institutions are not carried out transparently in Turkey. This is not something likely to happen in a democratic country. In democratic countries, people are informed about military spending. Commissions are set up in Parliament to discuss that spending. People usually know how much would be spent in weapons purchases. But this is not the case in Turkey. And for this reason, we score so poorly in international transparency surveys, Kardaş stated.
According to him, Turkey is not likely to go transparent in the defense sector in the short run. For this to happen, he said, there must be a political power that sincerely hopes for transparency and a radical change in people's minds. You may change laws, but this would not help unless minds change, he added.
The Turkish Ministry of Defense budget was fixed at TL 20.3 billion for the 2013 fiscal year, marking a big increase over 2012 when it was at TL 18.2 billion. The figures do not include the extrabudgetary funds earmarked for defense, which are not available even to legislators. The ministry's budget is composed of the budgets of the Defense Ministry, the air, navy and land forces as well as the General Staff.
The Law on the Court of Accounts adopted late in 2011 was hoped to help the introduction of a more transparent process for the oversight of military expenditures. It was aimed at strengthening the external mechanism auditing the expenditures of public institutions, including, for the first time, military spending.
Parliament made a few major changes to the law later last year, curbing independent oversight of public expenditure. However, the Constitutional Court annulled the changes towards the end of 2012, reintroducing transparency and accountability of expenditures made by state institutions.
Defense expert Lale Kemal, who is the Ankara bureau chief of the Taraf daily and a columnist for Today's Zaman, stated that one of the biggest defects in Turkey is that defense expenditures are not monitored duly by Parliament or the Court of Accounts. The Court of Accounts has begun monitoring those expenditures, but it is not clear to what extent it will manage due to some articles included in the law [on the Court of Accounts]. There is no commission in Parliament to audit weapons purchases or other military expenditure in Turkey, she complained.
Commenting on the Law on Court of Accounts, Kemal said it was drafted in 2010 in an attempt to allow the oversight of military expenditures for the first time. However, she said, the law was later amended to partially kill independent oversight of military spending by excluding 18 military-run firms from being audited.
The Turkish General Staff was a strong critic of the law, which was seen as a major step in Turkey's EU harmonization process despite its deficiencies. It argued that the supervision of military expenditure by the Court of Accounts would end the tradition of military secrecy.
According to Dr. Oliver Cover, the principal author of the Transparency International UK study, This index shows unequivocally that there is a severe risk of corruption in this sector. It is a shock that in some areas it is also so poorly understood, for example in conflict situations, where corruption can become deeply embedded. Our index will help everyone to understand and address the risks. Governments should clean up this sector, and our report will give them practical solutions to achieve transparency. Doing so will save the lives of troops and citizens -- and governments billions of dollars.
Mark Pyman, director of Transparency International UK's Defense and Security Program, said he hoped the survey would lead governments to improve anti-corruption policies. Corruption was dangerous because troops may well have equipment that doesn't work, and it was wasteful, he said.
Countries classed as being at "very high risk" of corruption include Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, the Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka. The United States, Britain, Sweden and South Korea were among countries judged to be at low risk, while France, Spain, Italy and Poland were in the moderate-risk group.
The survey looked not only at the potential for corruption in defense contracts but also at the risk of abuse of defense budgets and the risk of corruption in the armed forces.
source: Turkey needs stronger laws to boost transparency in defense
I think the article above is quite important, transparency is necessary to ensure that we're not wasting ressources. Also transparency is one of the fundamental cornerstones against corruption.
Turkey would probably not be chided by an international anti-corruption watchdog for lacking adequate safeguards to prevent corruption in its defense sector if it enjoyed stronger laws to boost transparency and had a commission in Parliament to audit military expenditures, according to some prominent defense experts.
Lack of transparency [in state institutions] in Turkey is a long-standing problem. The defense sector, in particular, is not transparent; it is hard to audit expenditures in the sector, Ümit Kardaş, a retired military judge, told Today's Zaman when commenting on the findings of a most recent survey by Transparency International UK.
According to the watchdog, Turkey is among the top arms importers, along with India, Thailand and several other countries, which are considered to be at a high risk of corruption in their defense sectors. The organization said on Tuesday that more than two-thirds of countries, including many of the world's largest arms traders, have inadequate safeguards to prevent corruption in their defense sectors.
Germany and Australia are the only countries out of 82 surveyed with strong anti-corruption mechanisms, according to what the watchdog says is the first index measuring how governments counter corruption in defense.
Among the top arms importers, five countries -- India, the United Arab Emirates, Singapore, Thailand and Turkey -- are in the high-risk category. China, Russia and Israel, all leading arms exporters, are also considered to be at a high risk of corruption in their defense sectors, according to the survey.
The 82 countries surveyed account for 94 percent of global military expenditure in 2011, worth $1.6 trillion.
Transparency International UK said 57 of the countries had poor controls against corruption. The organization rated governments by criteria, such as the strength of parliamentary oversight of defense policy and the standards expected of defense firms.
The findings of the survey were not surprising for Kardaş, though.
The latest law on the Court of Accounts and the court's reluctance to send audit reports to Parliament [for examination] are proof of the fact that expenditures at state institutions are not carried out transparently in Turkey. This is not something likely to happen in a democratic country. In democratic countries, people are informed about military spending. Commissions are set up in Parliament to discuss that spending. People usually know how much would be spent in weapons purchases. But this is not the case in Turkey. And for this reason, we score so poorly in international transparency surveys, Kardaş stated.
According to him, Turkey is not likely to go transparent in the defense sector in the short run. For this to happen, he said, there must be a political power that sincerely hopes for transparency and a radical change in people's minds. You may change laws, but this would not help unless minds change, he added.
The Turkish Ministry of Defense budget was fixed at TL 20.3 billion for the 2013 fiscal year, marking a big increase over 2012 when it was at TL 18.2 billion. The figures do not include the extrabudgetary funds earmarked for defense, which are not available even to legislators. The ministry's budget is composed of the budgets of the Defense Ministry, the air, navy and land forces as well as the General Staff.
The Law on the Court of Accounts adopted late in 2011 was hoped to help the introduction of a more transparent process for the oversight of military expenditures. It was aimed at strengthening the external mechanism auditing the expenditures of public institutions, including, for the first time, military spending.
Parliament made a few major changes to the law later last year, curbing independent oversight of public expenditure. However, the Constitutional Court annulled the changes towards the end of 2012, reintroducing transparency and accountability of expenditures made by state institutions.
Defense expert Lale Kemal, who is the Ankara bureau chief of the Taraf daily and a columnist for Today's Zaman, stated that one of the biggest defects in Turkey is that defense expenditures are not monitored duly by Parliament or the Court of Accounts. The Court of Accounts has begun monitoring those expenditures, but it is not clear to what extent it will manage due to some articles included in the law [on the Court of Accounts]. There is no commission in Parliament to audit weapons purchases or other military expenditure in Turkey, she complained.
Commenting on the Law on Court of Accounts, Kemal said it was drafted in 2010 in an attempt to allow the oversight of military expenditures for the first time. However, she said, the law was later amended to partially kill independent oversight of military spending by excluding 18 military-run firms from being audited.
The Turkish General Staff was a strong critic of the law, which was seen as a major step in Turkey's EU harmonization process despite its deficiencies. It argued that the supervision of military expenditure by the Court of Accounts would end the tradition of military secrecy.
According to Dr. Oliver Cover, the principal author of the Transparency International UK study, This index shows unequivocally that there is a severe risk of corruption in this sector. It is a shock that in some areas it is also so poorly understood, for example in conflict situations, where corruption can become deeply embedded. Our index will help everyone to understand and address the risks. Governments should clean up this sector, and our report will give them practical solutions to achieve transparency. Doing so will save the lives of troops and citizens -- and governments billions of dollars.
Mark Pyman, director of Transparency International UK's Defense and Security Program, said he hoped the survey would lead governments to improve anti-corruption policies. Corruption was dangerous because troops may well have equipment that doesn't work, and it was wasteful, he said.
Countries classed as being at "very high risk" of corruption include Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, the Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka. The United States, Britain, Sweden and South Korea were among countries judged to be at low risk, while France, Spain, Italy and Poland were in the moderate-risk group.
The survey looked not only at the potential for corruption in defense contracts but also at the risk of abuse of defense budgets and the risk of corruption in the armed forces.
source: Turkey needs stronger laws to boost transparency in defense
I think the article above is quite important, transparency is necessary to ensure that we're not wasting ressources. Also transparency is one of the fundamental cornerstones against corruption.
