Today it is assumed that corruption has “cultural roots” in some countries, but in others this phenomenon is completely abhorrent. Thus, charges of corruption are heard directly from Western countries against their opponents. As a rule, it concernsregimes, not involved in the pro-Western integration processes.
In the USA and EU countries, corruption is considered to be a transformation of power into property, but not property into power. Buying politicians, exerting “influence” on companies and lobbying are not considered to be something unseemly. So, a callfor fighting corruption haschanged the meaning to a call for the elimination of alternative systems of power and property relationship and the host influence expand.

Let us recall of Panama Leaks, when a media campaign was launched against representatives of a number of countries, such as China, RF, India, Egypt, Syria and other countries, in one way or another associated with the BRICS, SCO. Meanwhile, Western countries representatives from the same list were almost completely missed out of the general information context.
It is against this background that the statement made by former British Prime Minister David Cameron on the need for organizing a global anti-corruption agency, whose taskswere to be a structural analysis of the individual states economies and formulation of appropriate recommendations to them, seems to be very interesting. That would have given Western countries a direct instrument of pressure upon sovereign countries.

In addition, Cameron himself appears on the list of Panama. Truth be told,the matter was no further than a small public hearing, in which the former prime minister once admitted, but then denied the existence of Blairmore Holdings fund investment shares. However, it was to be expected, as the team of lawyers was supervised by EdvordTrupp, who had worked in the legal organization of Siemens and Siemens, which by chance had served the very offshore company –Blairmore Holdings. Here we face a double standard.

This is just one of high-profile examples of the fact that corruption fighting at the international level is quite specific and polarized. And in order to understand all the geopolitical aspects, it is necessary to have an idea of the entire scheme of these organizations work.

As the current practice shows,all the information to be published passes through various national defense committees, the media, including independent or specializing international organizations such as the UN, EU etc. As a rule, before the so-called “bad publicity” all data passes through Transparency International, a non-governmental international organization to combat corruption around the world. It funds this activity, by the way.

But if you examine the basic financial flows more closely, it turns out that Transparency International is not so independent, as it is directly funded by the governments of the US and the UK. In the structure of the organization there is a structure core dedicated to strategic analysis, which is funded by private items by redirect funds from the anti-corruption education and various research projects. That in and of itself is very strange.

Since 2013 it has been headed by Mark Paymon. In the report to the representatives of the US State Department and the Foreign Investment Department of the UK, he repeatedly pointed out that one of the main indicators in the corruption ranking of countries is the openness of military budgets and research in this sphere.

The representational office of the organization in the United States is headed by Mike Hershman, who is concurrently the second person in the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is notorious for its “humanitarian” activities which keep conducting covert operations hidden in many parts of the world. Also, Hershman is a member ofthe National Democracy Fundchairmen board, known for its close ties to the National Security Agency and the US Central Intelligence Agency.

For reference, one of the general chairmen of the National Democracy Fund is well known Zbigniew Kazimierz Bzhizinsky, an advisor and board member of Johns Hopkins University Center for Strategic and International Studies, the director of the CIA Global Intelligence Center, the deputy director and chief analyst of the NSA on the geostrategic analysis.

Coming back to Transparency International, in particular to its investors, among which apart with above mentioned the USAID, the National Democracy Fund and the Department of the British Foreign investments there can be found “long-suffering”George SorosOpen Society Fund, Ford Foundation (the administration of which includes a large number of former NSAdepartmentheads), and fourth in terms of world’sassets oil and gas company Royal Dutch Shell.

But does this pyramid itself deal with corruption? Let us consider the major players starting with the governing body, logistics center USAID, which is essentially a multifunctional institute of military and semi-military purposes. Since 2001, all private contracts for needs of the US military army and its allies have been passing through the US Agency for International Development. Throughout its existence, the agency and its employees have appeared in hundreds of trials connected with money laundering and financial frauds.

Let us recall of hearing the Pentagon about missing almost 10 billion dollars since 1999. Part of these funds reached the destination exactly through USAID. The articles featuredboth contracts for the supply, maintenance and service, and carrying out special operations as well as keeping”branches”- safe houses all over the world. It was especially hotly touched upon the proceedings in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the affairs of Egypt and Yemenwere also involved there. Here new figures come into the deal.

The Afghan Contractof 2008 to supply the Afghan government forces in support of the operation “Enduring Freedom” with sets of AK-47,weapon and ammunition of the Soviet type. As it occurred later, the military armywas sold mostly Chinese and Czech low-quality counterparts. Transactions and overseeing the delivery were still under the responsibility of USAID. The same organization was notified supplying fuel for the NATO-led coalition forces in Afghanistan at 5.5-6 timesinflated prices. The company kept the difference from the purchase and sale to itself.

No exception from the “anti-corruption” club was oil company Royal Dutch Shell. Promoting its interests in the market, the oil and gas giant blazed a trail in Africa. After the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, the company financed the rebels in order to ensure control over the oil fields. Truth be told, in 2014 the project of the Islamic State appeared, which ruined the game.

Also, on the territory of Mali, Shell developed the gas recoveryby means of only “its” technology that completely excludes any government’s ability to independently carry out oil and by-product gas output, and secured the oil tradermonopoly.
Even more heated was the situation in the Republic of Niger, where Royal Dutch Shell also became a monopoly, incidentallycausing an ecological catastrophe, for which it was summoned for several hearings at the UN. But in fact, the case was not investigated further, as a result more than 75% of waterhappened to be contaminated on the territory of Niger. Since the authorities of the republic aimed to ban the activities of Shell, it became a rebels’sponsor who massacred entire villages, thus triggering a civil war.

Royal Dutch Shell is now focused on the CIS countries and Russia, this is due primarily to the privatization of Gazprom.

And now from common corruption we have come to strategic, military and political aspects and the issue of security in modern geopolitics. And if you look at the pyramid as a whole it occursto be one more channel of connection and impact on society, a lobby and competitors eliminationinstrument, and at the same time an excellent source of data collection and processing. Today, a huge number of advisers from the United States and USAID Missions Fund and other organizations are concentrated in the countries of Central Asia. There are many examples of “virus of corruption” implementations in this region.What are their purposes? Soon we will see…