CORRUPTION IN CONFLICT

440 U.S. Embassy Kabul, “Rule of Law in Afghanistan: MEC to Follow up on ‘Lessons Learned’ from
Kabul Bank,” Kabul 2766 cable, May 26, 2012.
441 MEC, Report on the Implementation of Anticorruption Related Elements of Presidential Decree 45,
March 13, 2013, p. 3.
442 Torabi, email to SIGAR, March 5, 2016; MEC, Seventh Six-Month Report, March 4, 2015, ep. 3.
443 USAID Office of Inspector General, Audit of USAID/Afghanistan’s On-Budget Funding Assistance
to the Ministry of Public Health, Audit Report F-306-11-004-P, September, 2011, p. 1; SIGAR, Direct
Assistance: USAID Has Taken Positive Action to Assess Afghan Ministries’ Ability to Manage
Donor Funds, but Concerns Remain, SIGAR 14-32-AR, January 2014, p. 1. On-budget assistance
is distributed in three ways: direct (bilateral) assistance, through host country contracts and
government-to-government awards; contributions to multi-donor trust funds (such as ARTF, LOTFA,
and Afghanistan Security Forces Fund); and direct budget support.
444 John F. Sopko, “Challenges Affecting U.S. Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan,” testimony before the
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, SIGAR 13-10T, April 10, 2013, p. 1.
445 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Evaluating U.S. Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan,
S. Prt. 112-21, p. 18.
446 Mohammad M. Stanekzai, “Afghanistan: Not Lost, But Needs More Attention,” U.S. Institute of Peace
briefing, June 2008, pp. 5-6.
447 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Evaluating U.S. Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan,
S. Prt. 112-21, pp. 18-19, 25. SIGAR found no analysis of whether on-budget or off-budget assistance
is more susceptible to corruption.
448 Ibid, pp. 18-19.
449 Kabul International Conference on Afghanistan, Conference Communique, July 20, 2010, p. 2;
London Conference, Afghan Leadership, Regional Cooperation, International Partnership, January
28, 2010; The Tokyo Declaration, Partnership for Self-Reliance in Afghanistan: From Transition to
Transformation, July 8, 2012, p. 4.
450 Kabul International Conference on Afghanistan, Conference Communique, pp. 2-3.
451 Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework, adopted at the Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan, July 8,
2012, pp. 2-4.
452 U.S. Embassy Kabul, “Tokyo Framework and Incentive Fund,” Kabul 584 cable, February 6, 2014, p.
4. The bilateral incentive program was divided into two tranches, one of $75 million in FY 2012 funds
and one of $100 million in FY 2013 funds. The latter tranche was intended to be discussed with the
new government, with an expectation of new metrics.
453 U.S. Embassy Kabul, “Tokyo Framework and Incentive Fund,” Kabul 584 cable, February 6, 2014,
pp. 2-4.
454 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, April 30, 2014, pp. 163-164; SIGAR, High-
Risk List, December 2014, p. 23.
455 U.S. Embassy Kabul, “Tokyo Framework and Incentive Fund,” Kabul 584 cable, February 6, 2014,
p. 4.
456 ISAF, COMISAF’s Counterinsurgency Contracting Guidance, September 8, 2010.
457 Joint Staff, Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis, Operationalizing Counter/Anticorruption
Study, p. 27.
458 Berthold, SIGAR interview, October 6, 2015.
459 Ibid.
460 Creal, SIGAR interview, March 23, 2016.
461 Berthold, SIGAR interview, October 6, 2015; Creal, SIGAR interview, March 23, 2016.
462 Meyer, email to SIGAR, March 6, 2016; former USAID vendor vetting official, SIGAR interview,
December 8, 2015.
SIGAR I CORRUPTION IN CONFLICT I SEPTEMBER 2016
121