What to Do About Proxies

Our ministers have become rather good at talking about foreign interference and rather less good at asking how it has acquired a British passport, legitimate businesses and a place at the top table.

The reality is that the refusal to investigate Russian shenanigans around Brexit, combined with unenforceable rules on political donations, has led to a collapse in deterrence. Today, foreign interests are readily absorbed through offshore structures into lobbying and political funding streams, as easily as with mother’s milk, until the domestic and the hostile become one and the same.

That is the uncomfortable territory explored here with Dr Susan Hawley, executive director of Spotlight on Corruption. We spoke about whether the landmark Representation of the People Bill can live up to its billing as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect our democracy from geopolitical meddling by powerful hostile states, how proxy networks should be deterred, and whether sanctions should be used not merely against kleptocrats and warmongers, but against those who help corrode democracy itself.

Dr Susan Hawley is an anti-corruption expert who has researched and campaigned on the UK’s role in facilitating global corruption for over 20 years. Her work has included taking the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department to court for weakening anti-bribery procedures, challenging the decision to drop the investigation into the BAE/Al Yamamah scandal, working to secure aid funding for international anti-corruption enforcement in the UK, and being part of efforts to ensure that corporate liability was included in the Bribery Act. She is a founder of Spotlight on Corruption, having previously worked at Corruption Watch UK, The Corner House and Christian Aid on corruption issues.

Before we get to foreign interference and the Representation of the People Bill now going through Parliament, I want to begin with ancient history, because the use of political corruption as a geopolitical weapon is hardly new.

Sallust, writing about the Jugurthine War between Rome and the North African kingdom of Numidia from 111 to 105 BC, describes Jugurtha bribing Roman senators and officials, obtaining a suspiciously favourable settlement and frustrating attempts to investigate the corruption.

Closer to home, there is the Secret Treaty of Dover of 1670. Louis XIV secretly subsidised Charles II, reducing the King’s financial dependence on Parliament in return for English support for French policy against the Dutch Republic. I hope you appreciate the subtle parallel!

Corruption has been around a long time.

THE OLD PLAYBOOK: JUGURTHA AND THE TREATY OF DOVER

Sallust’s account of the Jugurthine War describes Numidian king Jugurtha using bribery to cultivate Roman elites, secure lenient treatment and obstruct justice. In 1670, Charles II secretly agreed with Louis XIV to support France against the Dutch Republic. French “subsidies” also gave Charles greater financial room to manoeuvre without Parliament. Different political systems, but the same geopolitical principle: foreign funding of those in charge creates a serious threat not only to effective and responsible governance but also, importantly, to the security of the whole nation.

Source notes: 1–2

Your organisation spends a great deal of time working with parliamentarians and government to improve Britain’s anti-corruption framework. Do politicians sufficiently understand the implications of political corruption for the security of this country?

It is a great question. I think some politicians and MPs really get it, but it is very rarely at the top of their priority inbox. That is a mistake, because this is a national security issue.