Among the myriad number of major problems facing the coalition in Afghanistan (and in Iraq) is infidelity: soldiers and policemen trained by US and NATO forces more often than not turning their guns many times on their own instructors and/or fellow soldiers. While some of the time it has been a spur of the moment decision, frequently militants have deliberately infiltrated the army and the police, which is only possible by compromising those responsible for their screening. As much as in Afghanistan corruption prospers on all levels in our society. It can be found at the lower level involving public officials, particularly those in the procurement section of contracting agencies. Corruption is entrenched; it is a society wherein low level government employees accept bribes for passports, visas, driving licenses etc. On the other hand, high-level patronage networks have allowed corruption to thrive and become pervasive. This fosters criminal networks, waste and fraud, and has a debilitating effect on our security. What is really dangerous is how corruption facilitates the penetration of security screens. The use of bribery as a means to get access to individuals of influence or to facilitate a contract is common in developing countries like Pakistan. Other than outright bribery, the modus operandi of contractors is to use wine and women, particularly where this is restricted, as a means to get things done. Personnel within the procurement section of different agencies carry out unfair “technical evaluation” to knock out competition and cook up financial evaluation to reflect false figures. This misleading of their superiors by lower level employees is endemic in procurement departments of international agencies. Companies that do not pay bribes or use other unfair means fail to get contracts. The World Economic Forum’s (WEF’s) Global Agenda Council’s (GAC) report on ‘Transparency and anti-corruption’ has proposed that all international procurement entities and multi-national companies that bid for contracts follow the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) good practice guidance and internal controls, ethics and compliance or the World Bank’s ‘Integrity compliance guidelines’ (crafted by panel member Nicola Bonucci), which has a clear policy on corruption, including the process for vetting partners, employees and subcontractors. With a training programme for all staff on corruption policies and reporting requirements, international agencies in particular should be required to report corruption and the impact that it may have on service delivery. An internal affairs department should undertake a thorough analysis of the risk of corruption, the forms it may take and who is likely to be involved. What is alarming is that some international agencies informally acknowledge that corruption may be a factor and put projects and their own personnel at risk by not honestly carrying out a correct assessment of the potential impact. Companies in developing countries that cannot compete on a level playing field employ personnel to exploit the human weaknesses of personnel in the procurement agencies. In a well-researched paper, Mark Carruthers of Centerra advises establishing parameters about tolerance for corruption, which approach to take and what leverage can be used to reduce the impact of corruption. Establishing mechanisms to address corruption and practice policies internally can be set up by (a) establishing clear guidelines on the level of tolerance for corruption (zero tolerance being the correct message), (b) identifying individuals tasked with monitoring corruption and associated mitigation efforts, (c) training all staff in corruption and anti-corruption practices recognised by host country bureaucrats and security forces at all levels, and (d) establishing expectations and communicating issues early; all international agencies must be required to report any instance of corruption by establishing a clear reporting system.Kept hidden as a well-known ‘secret’ for various reasons, companies and their personnel are forced to adopt corrupt practices to sustain their businesses in an environment where it is a done thing. The personnel of all international agencies that manipulate the system make them active collaborators and accessories of those who may commit infidelity. A clear policy must be set on the tolerance of corruption with the policy being disseminated to all levels, with clear reporting guidelines and consequences for failure to report. Procurement departments must be aware of their agencies’ zero sum approach on corruption and not only have adequate measures in place to prevent corruption but of reporting all suspected corruption. During the evaluation of a bid for providing security services to the personnel and property of a foreign government that prides itself (and very rightly so) on the honesty and integrity of their procurement process, the technical evaluation committee opined that the reason for not accepting the bid was the exclusion of three fairly insignificant and innocuous points in the syllabus of the training programme of guards. Imagine the surprise of the security services providers when the contract was awarded to a company that did not even have a training school, let alone having a training syllabus and programme thereof! Prima facie a case of blatant corruption, those who practice corrupt means to achieve their objectives are as guilty as those who use corrupt means. During the WEF’s GAC’s recent meeting on ‘Transparency and anti-corruption’ in Abu Dhabi, it was noted that international agencies and private companies both were finding it exceedingly difficult to work in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq without condoning corruption even though in some developing countries the opportunity for, and the pervasiveness of, corruption makes prevention difficult. It is incumbent upon the senior hierarchy of international agencies to ensure that their procurement staff is not involved in corrupt practices that may seriously endanger their security personnel through infidelity and in turn put in jeopardy their mission statement. Unfortunately, the recurring danger is that this weakness can be exploited, the extent and impact of corruption tending to increase the level of infidelity in contracts involving the security of personnel and material. Some, like Mumtaz Qadri, who assassinated Governor Salmaan Taseer, revel in resorting to infidelity out of their own perverted belief while a fair number do so for money. Corruption in fact feeds infidelity as much as belief.Personnel coming from western countries to places of conflict so as to provide training and assistance must be properly briefed about dealing with infidelity. For foreign governments and international agencies working in developing countries ridden with internal conflict, it is most important that the means to control infidelity are given as much priority in evaluation as competence in providing security. The over-riding question is: what to do with those who foster corrupt practices leading to infidelity? The writer is a defence analyst and security expert