On a level with Syria, Papua New Guinea, and the Congo

Ukraine still has a very poor record of fighting greed in government structures. According to the Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International in 2012, Ukraine ranks 144th out of 176 countries in the study, having scored only 26 points out of a possible 100. According to Oleksii Khmara of TORO Association, the expert who actually rated Ukraine, this result is even lower than the last year’s.

Remarkably, other countries with the same rating, in Transparency International’s assessment, include Syria, Papua New Guinea, and the Congo. Kenya, Pakistan, and Nigeria look slightly better out with 27 points. Russia has earned 28. The best situation (90 points out of 100) seems to be in Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand. The worst is Somalia, which only got 8.

In line with the methodology used in TI’s analysis, the lower the rating, the closer the country comes to the “corruption abyss.” Meanwhile, any result below mark 30 is considered by TI as “a disgrace to the nation,” says this organization’s press release.

The TI experts believe that one of the key factors in the spread of corruption is the inertness of the National Anti-corruption Committee under the president of Ukraine, which has not convened for more than a year now. “The government’s agenda of fighting corruption is not worth more than the paper it is printed on. The funds, earmarked for the implementation of the government’s anti-corruption program in 2011-12, were never allocated,” said TI citing reasons for the blatant sluggishness on this front. “The amendments to state purchase legislation channeled tens of billions of budget funds into the shade. The citizens are now virtually deprived of the right to information about purchases made with public money,” emphasized Transparency International.

The Day turned to the Council for National Security and Defense with a request to comment on the outcome of the rating. The definition “a disgrace to the nation” is actually an assessment of this organization’s achievements. We would like to remind our readers that in early March this year Andrii Kliuiev, secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, said at a briefing that “from this day on, the Council for National Security and Defense of Ukraine becomes the center of war on corruption.” This was the president’s decision [By presidential Decree No. 201/2012 the National Anti-Corruption Committee was transferred under the jurisdiction of the National Security and Defense Council. – Author]. The NSDC secretary was appointed executive secretary of the Committee, while the logistics was entrusted to the NSDC staff.

The Day’s interlocutor, who wished to remain anonymous, advised the journalist “to take all those ratings with a pinch of salt,” saying that most of them “have been created with a view to promote certain political and economic interests. A considerable part of ratings are based on ‘expert opinions.’ Any expert opinion is relative. Here is a vivid example. International business’ ratings of business climate in Ukraine always strongly depend on the situation in the global market, since all negative emanations from the companies’ management immediately reflect on the employees’ psychological state.” According to him, even the world’s leading rating agencies, whose data help make hundreds of millions on the stock exchange every day (and some estimates say that each year 1.2 quadrillion dollar worth securities are nominated on the basis of these data), are increasingly oftener accused of fraud. “Overall, the global financial crisis is blamed on them, since they knowingly packaged trash equity as substandard and conferred top ratings on them.

The entire system has made a handsome profit of this. However, most of the ordinary people have suffered a loss,” remarked The Day’s interlocutor. He suggested another example which provides reasons to question the impartiality of Transparency International’s experts: Freedom House research and statement on the decay of freedom of speech in Ukraine.

“At a certain point in time I did a study to improve the methodology similar to that of the Freedom House research. Well, the journalists of today have absolutely no idea of how freer Ukraine’s information space is today compared to, say, a decade ago. The situation differs dramatically. But they will repeat someone else’s words without even understanding the essence and having no criteria for comparison. Let alone the fact that Freedom House was created by the CIA and the major banks’ lobbyists to promote the interests of the US and their capital. Transparency International is another one of that ilk. That is why I would start with taking a better look at that rating,” says the source and appeals: “Do you really believe that Ukraine has a higher level of corruption than Syria, which is plagued by a civil war? Than in Cote d’Ivoire, where insurgents are constantly threatening to overthrow the government? Or in Colombia, where, despite the American support, the regime has no control whatsoever over half the country – they just grow a huge proportion of the global drug market? Transparency International is a propagandist organization which promotes the interests of the club of major transnational companies, which in some or another way are linked to the USA and its policy,” summarized he.

Instead the civic sector leaders, who fight corruption on their own, see no reasons to question the legitimacy of Transparency International’s rating. “This is the major corruption rating in the world. All global players use it to build their assessments of countries’ economic situations, business climates, and attractiveness for investment. Moreover, virtually all international economic ratings take the TI index into account. The analysis of any economic index will include such a factor as corruption. These data are actually provided by Transparency International,” said Vitalii SHABUNIN of the Center for Counteracting Corruption. According to him, in the West this rating is considered the most transparent, reliable, and easy for perception. So accusing the TI researchers of partisanship and malevolent discrediting Ukraine’s business climate is totally inappropriate.

As for the reasons why Ukraine will not improve its corruption perception index in the Transparency International rating, Shabunin also adduced the version citing the changes in tender legislation. “The amendments introduced last July virtually channel 250 billion hryvnias out of public control,” says he. Moreover, he doubts the effectiveness of the National Anti-Corruption Committee in the war on corruption, for this body has no right to conduct investigation. Shabunin also believes that “the blame for inactivity should be laid on Prosecutor General’s office, the Security Service, and the Ministry of the Interior.”

“War on corruption has always begun and been effective only on one condition: the government’s political will. The kind of will Ukraine’s head of state has is obvious when you simply consider the costs spent on the maintenance of his residence. You can’t fight corruption while living in the luxury of Mezhyhiria,” concludes he emotionally.

Paradoxically, the main challenge facing the resource-rich Ukraine today is finding creditors. But the trouble is that Ukraine’s further cooperation with the world’s key financial institutions greatly depends on its economy ratings. The corruption index is quite a weighty factor. Thus, Shabunin rightly notes that “no matter how many millions and billions would Kaskiv (head of the State Agency for Investment and National projects of Ukraine) take from the budget for his road shows, it will change nothing. You might just as well close down the State Agency for Investment tomorrow. All its efforts are frustrated by this rating. The first thing for any decent investor to do, if he ever considers doing business in Ukraine, is to reach for Transparency International’s report.”