Whispers in the margins: conflict, crime and corruption at CoSP11
- Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church - CJL
- 1 day ago
- 7 min read
By Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church, Executive Director, Besa Global
Fifteen themes, over 625 panelists in 125 side events at the eleventh Conference of State Parties on the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (CoSP11), yet only FOUR side-events addressed working in conflict zones. This is while Gaza, Haiti, Somalia, Syria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Mali, Myanmar and many others see corruption and crime fueling and being fueled by the conflict.
The reasons this critically toxic nexus receives so little attention gurgled to the fore during The Corruption and Organized Crime Across the Conflict Cycle panel –– one of the four side events. (Full disclosure –– Besa Global was a lead organizer on this panel).
Here, I have synthesized the key reasons from that discussion along with the main proposals on how to respond.
The reasons this critically toxic nexus receives so little attention gurgled to the fore during The Corruption and Organized Crime Across the Conflict Cycle panel –– one of the four side events (out of 125!) giving it attention at CoSP11.
But first, some context to the points we raised in the panel.
How conflict shapes corruption and crime (and vice versa)
If we want effective policies and programs, then they need to reflect the realities of the place in which they are implemented. And the literature is pretty clear that conflict changes the context.
Conflict impacts which actors are involved in perpetuating and fighting corruption and crime. Different actors have different levels of power (official and unofficial), reach and access to legitimate use of force which all impact the ability to detect, investigate and sanction.
Register to Join
HFG Knowledge Against Violence Speaker Series: Corruption and Conflict
Join Besa Global's Diana Chigas and Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church as they discuss their latest publication 'Fueling the Fires', examining the complex relationship between corruption and conflict.
Date/Time: Feb 18, 2026 at 1 PM EST
Register here
Conflict impacts the state; everything from the legitimacy of the state to sanction a corrupt actor to the strength of institutions to the acceptability of stealing from the state. All of which directly impact perceptions of what counts as corruption or crime, the likelihood of it being reported, the ability to detect and investigate it, as well as the perceived appropriateness of sanctions.
Conflict impacts the collective psychological state of the populace. The degree of uncertainty, level of generalized trauma and the outright struggle to survive in a highly fraught context creates different incentives and disincentives to participate in crime, corruption and conflict.
Conflict impacts the risk to life and livelihood that anti-corruption and law enforcement professionals face when involved in their fight against crime and corruption.
If conflict has this much of an influence on the variables essential to fight crime and corruption, then it should have the same influence on the policies and programs stood up to fight them. And by extension, we should be seeing a clear articulation in all discussions related to crime and corruption that make explicit what context their solutions are applicable for –– stable, fragile and/or conflict affected.
Subscribe here to receive the Corruption in Fragile State Blog's posts. We publish every three weeks — enough to keep you informed without cluttering your inbox.
Panelists underscored five interrelated reasons that conflict is sidelined
The Corruption and Organized Crime Across the Conflict Cycle Panel
SPEAKERS
Jonathan Bourguignon, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer (Anti-Corruption), UNODC
Arkan El Seblani, Regional Chief Advisor and Programme Manager, Anti-Corruption and Integrity, UNDP Arab States
Tuesday Reitano, Managing Director, Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime
Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church, Executive Director, Besa Global
OPENING REMARKS
Chris Chalmers, Deputy Director, Illicit Finance and Anti-Corruption, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Amir Fouad, Senior Advisor, Asset Recovery, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
MODERATOR
Yi Kang Choo, Defence & Health Programmes Manager, Transparency International UK
Sectoral silos
Endemic corruption, organized crime and conflict have historically been viewed as separate problems, resulting in the emergence of distinct sectors. Each has, in turn, generated myopic theories, strategies, professional competencies and even language. This creates artificial boundaries in their responses that are not representative of the interconnected nature of the problem. It is a conflict analysis, for instance, that highlights corruption as a key factor, yet the peacebuilding response ignores it because corruption is outside the agency’s mandate, competencies or funding envelope.
The current contraction of the aid sector, sparked by the geopolitical about-face prioritizing security spending, has the potential to reduce or reinforce these silos. Unfortunately, the tendency to revert to one’s core mandate in the face of financial cuts and decreased political support, weighs in the favour of reinforced silos.
Ill-suited analytic lens
The way an organization approaches a problem analysis informs the data collected, analytic frame used, and ultimately what solutions are implemented. To date, the corruption and crime fields have been far too dependent on analysis that pre-supposes the problems as either simple or complicated, instead of complex (Cynefin framework). This is exacerbated by the analysis being done in a silo-based vacuum (see #1). This leads to inadequate responses that have little chance of making a sustained impact.
Also, data is not analysis: As I said on the panel, “data doesn’t tell us why things happen.” We need to understand what drives and enables a particular problem. Even Indexes, such as the Global Organized Crime Index, which play an important role, are not the same as good analysis.
Programming bounded by state boundaries
Current international programming is predominantly bilateral. But the crime, corruption, conflict ecosystem is not. As Arkan explained …"[W]hen we are trying to address this nexus of corruption, crime, and a conflict, we need to recognize that it is by nature cross-border, and that it requires neighboring countries to work together... [B]ecause the proceeds, the criminals, they don't immediately move to London or to [New York] … they usually first move next door.”
Strict distinction between licit and illicit actors
Licit and illicit actors are routinely –– and misleadingly –– cast as occupying separate camps. In this view, state officials reside in the licit actor camp while criminal figures are illicit. This siloing is ill-suited to current conflict contexts where state officials regularly have a foot in both camps. Tuesday further elaborated this point: “Crime actors increasingly become conflict actors… [and are] also being strategically manipulated and enabled by states to work as a hybrid tool in a conflict.”
Crime and corruption left until ‘later’
Those in decision-making roles in conflict contexts have long punted the issues of crime and corruption to ‘later’. These issues are seen as too complex, messy, political and sensitive; fostering a fear that any engagement could worsen the violence or destabilize a fragile peace. But this simply gives these issues more time to entrench within the existing systems of the state, making the challenge later that much more difficult to address.
What should we be doing?
Advocate for a paradigm shift: Convincing decision-makers to act on crime and corruption in contexts of conflict is not only about when the work should happen, but, critically –– also seeing the necessity of it. As Jonathan explained: “We really have to message the idea that working on corruption is actually a way to contribute directly to the peace and security agenda… it's one of the key ways to make our engagement more impactful.”
Link programming between sectors: Integrating responses across sectors where work is done in tandem, not in silos, was a point stressed by Chris in his opening remarks. Yet it was clear in the discussion that there is no one right way to integrate responses. It could entail one multi-faceted program, consortiums of actors, or strategically aligned but separate independent initiatives.
Adopt fit-for-purpose analysis to inform integrated programming: Conduct analysis in a manner that reflects the intertwined nature of conflict, crime and corruption, and the fluidity between licit and illicit actors. Options include third-generation political economy analysis or systems approaches that map complex adaptive systems. Analysis must give due attention to drivers of the system and not only what enables it to function.
Use the problem’s border, not a state border: Align the boundaries of the response to the boundaries of the problem, instead of a default to state borders. This releases programs from artificial constraints. Chris said it clearly: “Adopt cross-border as well as regional approaches with joint strategies.”
Abide by key operating principles
The need to work in ways suited to conflict contexts was also stressed:
Apply conflict-sensitivity frameworks to policies and programs.
Use adaptive management practices to nimbly respond to changes in context.
Look to local level (i.e. community, municipality) or even individuals (e.g. investigative journalists, individual change agents, etc.) for entry points.
Adopt a long-term approach and focus as much on prevention as response.
The only way to go is up
When panel moderator Yi Kang asked the speakers for examples of effective current approaches, very few examples were forthcoming. Both Tuesday and Arkan noted that intentional engagement with this crucial nexus is very rare, with Tuesday adding a concerning nuance “… We've seen a steady progression and complication and decline rather than actually any particularly positive outcomes.”
Developing integrated, cross-sectoral approaches that respond to the complexity of the issue in a conflict-sensitive and nimble manner can only improve the situation.
What a great panel it was!
Many thanks to Transparency International Defence & Security for getting behind the idea and co-designing this panel with us. Kudos to UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, Government of Colombia, Government of Iraq, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, UNDP Arab States, and UNODC for being event co-sponsors. The quality of the conversation was a testament to the expertise of the speakers, the deft hand of our moderator and excellent questions from the audience. Thank You, Danke, Shukran, Merci, 谢谢, Gracias
Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church is a practitioner-scholar with a lifelong interest in governance processes that have run amok. She has significant experience in peacebuilding, governance, anti-corruption, evaluation and learning across the Balkans, West and East Africa. She currently serves as the Executive Director of Besa Global, where she also co-leads the Corruption, Justice & Legitimacy (CJL) Program. In this capacity she has pioneered the application of systems thinking to corruption analysis and the role of social norms as a driver of corrupt practices. Cheyanne taught on the intersection of conflict and corruption as well as program design, monitoring and evaluation in fragile contexts at the Fletcher School, Tufts University for 15 years. Prior to this, as the first Director of Evaluation for Search for Common Ground she developed the organization’s initial strategy to institutionalize an evidence and learning culture and practice. Her interest in understanding peacebuilding effectiveness started during her role as the Director of Policy & Evaluation at INCORE, University of Ulster. She has had the privilege of working in an advisory capacity with a range of organizations such as ABA/ROLI, CDA, ICRC, IDRC, UN Peacebuilding Fund and the US State Department. She can be commonly found in the Canadian Rockies with her fierce daughters and gem of a husband.
