The Overlooked Pillar of Peacebuilding: Integrating Anti-Corruption Measures in Conflict Resolutions

Mary Chikwanda in Zimbabwe

When discussing peacebuilding efforts in conflict zones, topics like ceasefires, disarmament, and power-sharing dominate the narrative.

However, one critical element often goes unnoticed: anti-corruption measures. As conflict-prone regions transition from war to peace, corruption—the abuse of entrusted authority for private gain—often festers, jeopardizing the fragile stability that peace agreements aim to establish.

Recent findings from the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre highlight the vital yet underexplored role of anti-corruption provisions in peace agreements.

Analyzing 140 agreements from 1990 to 2023, the study reveals that only 36% of peace processes included anti-corruption measures—a statistic that underscores the need for reform in global peacebuilding practices.

The Undermining Effect of Corruption

Corruption in post-conflict settings is not merely an ethical issue; it is a structural menace capable of reigniting violence. Weak state institutions and sudden influxes of international aid often provide fertile ground for corrupt practices.

In South Sudan, repeated peace agreements failed to curb widespread embezzlement and misappropriation of state funds, which became flashpoints for renewed unrest.

The forms of corruption vary: in Afghanistan, petty bribery crippled economic recovery; in Iraq’s Mosul, displaced persons faced extortion from militias.

Such practices erode public trust in governance, creating environments where peace agreements become fragile treaties rather than frameworks for sustainable development.

The Role of Anti-Corruption in Peace Processes

Despite these risks, the integration of anti-corruption measures in peace agreements remains inconsistent. Comprehensive peace agreements—those aimed at extensive reform—are more likely to include such provisions, accounting for 21% of anti-corruption references.

However, ceasefire and pre-negotiation agreements often sideline the issue, focusing instead on immediate conflict de-escalation.

Notable examples of robust anti-corruption measures include Colombia’s 2016 Final Agreement, which introduced mechanisms like an Integrated Information System to combat corruption.

Similarly, South Sudan’s 2018 agreement strengthened its Anti-Corruption Commission to enhance its independence and accountability.

Why Aren’t Anti-Corruption Measures Universal?

The limited adoption of anti-corruption measures stems from several challenges:

1. Sensitivities in Negotiations: Accusations of corruption can be weaponized, potentially derailing delicate peace talks.
2. Elite Resistance: Political elites may oppose transparency measures that threaten their control over state resources.
3. Technical Complexity: Anti-corruption provisions often require specialized expertise, which may be absent during negotiations.

Moreover, peace mediators sometimes prioritize immediate political stability over long-term governance reforms, pushing anti-corruption measures to parallel discussions in judicial or legislative forums.

Pathways for Integrating Anti-Corruption into Peacebuilding

The U4 report identifies practical steps to enhance the inclusion of anti-corruption measures:

• Institutional Reforms: Establishing independent audit bodies and anti-corruption commissions, as seen in Mali and Yemen.
• Sector-Specific Measures: Addressing corruption in critical areas like natural resource extraction and public financial management.
• Civil Society Engagement: Encouraging public participation in oversight mechanisms to enhance transparency and accountability.

Additionally, international frameworks like the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) can serve as benchmarks for aligning domestic reforms with global standards.

Corruption in post-conflict settings disproportionately affects marginalized communities, including women and displaced persons. The South Sudan agreement’s emphasis on involving women’s organizations in anti-corruption advocacy highlights the intersection of gender and governance.

In countries like Colombia, robust justice systems targeting corruption have also addressed gender-based violence, recognizing that corruption and inequality often intertwine.

The Road Ahead

As global peacebuilding efforts evolve, integrating anti-corruption measures into peace agreements should transition from an afterthought to a cornerstone. Addressing corruption early in the peace process can build trust, reinforce the legitimacy of transitional governments, and lay the groundwork for enduring stability.

By sidelining corruption, we risk building peace on a foundation of sand—unstable and easily eroded.

For peace to be more than a pause in violence, it must also be a commitment to justice, transparency, and good governance.