No End to Sexual Abuse Allegations Against UN Peacekeepers

The United Nations Security Council issued a press statement on August 18th expressing “outrage and anger” regarding allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by United Nations peacekeepers, including the latest allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse committed in the Central African Republic (CAR). The members of the Security Council had been briefed by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon last week regarding these allegations and the measures he was undertaking to enforce a zero tolerance policy against such conduct by UN peacekeepers. There have been reportedly at least 11 complaints to date having to do with sexual abuse or sexual exploitation involving members of the UN’s peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic. Sadly, this is nothing new. Between 2007 and July 31, 2015 there were reportedly 690 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse for all categories of UN personnel, according to the UN’s own Office of Internal Oversight Services.

The Secretary General told the Security Council during his recent briefing that there was “a cancer in our system that is doing grave harm to the lives of the people we are meant to protect and serve.” He added that “I cannot express strongly enough my distress and shame over reports of sexual exploitation and the abuse of power by UN forces, police or civilian personnel.” One of Ban Ki-moon’s actions taken in response to the latest allegations was to ask for the resignation of his Special Representative in Central African Republic and Head of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the CAR (MINUSCA), General Babacar Gaye. The Secretary General also conducted a video conference with the heads of United Nations peacekeeping operations, force commanders, and police commissioners during which he emphasized the zero tolerance policy and that he would hold them accountable for not dealing effectively with substantiated allegations of sexual exploitation or abuse occurring on their watch. He also discussed the importance of prevention, including training, and the responsibility of troop and police contributing countries to properly train their forces beforehand as well as to prosecute their peacekeepers to the full extent of the law if found to have committed acts of sexual misconduct against civilians. While the UN itself can take enforcement measures against civilian personnel, including referring their cases to the governments of the countries in which they are serving, military personnel whom are charged can only be sent back to their contributing countries for possible prosecution. Too often, there is little or no follow-up by the UN once such personnel are sent home, other than to receive information on whatever enforcement actions, if any, those countries end up taking. The Secretary General criticized the “far too lenient sanctions for such grave acts affecting men, women and, all too often, children” by troop contributing countries, but offered nothing concrete to pressure such countries towards adopting strong law enforcement measures if the allegations against their soldiers are proven to be true.

---

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had already established an External Independent Panel to look into reports of earlier allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse in the Central African Republic. That investigation was prompted by reports of alleged acts of sexual exploitation and abuse of children by soldiers who were operating in the Central African Republic under French command, subsequently performing alongside but separate from the UN peacekeeping mission, as part of an operation called Operation Sangaris. The United Nations bureaucracy, when informed of the allegations, allegedly sat on the information. Instead they went after a whistleblower whom had informed the French government of the disturbing findings regarding their troops set forth in a confidential UN human rights report. Just like now, past cases of sexual exploitation and abuse of civilians by peacekeepers sent to protect them have elicited expressions of outrage, righteous indignation and resolve to enforce a zero tolerance policy, once they belatedly come to light. Then, after the dust settles, business continues as usual. Back in 2008, for example, Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council:

“Let me be clear: the United Nations, and I personally, are profoundly committed to a zero-tolerance policy against sexual exploitation or abuse by our own personnel. This means zero complacency. When we receive credible allegations, we ensure that they are looked into fully. It means zero impunity. When allegations are found to have merit, all personnel -- whether military, police or civilians -- are held accountable based on applicable national jurisdictions. I will strengthen the current code of conduct by upholding the strictest discipline, whereby not only the individual concerned, but also supervisors up the chain of command, are held accountable in a system of collective responsibility.”

More than seven years later, Ban Ki-moon finally asked for the resignation of just one of his Special Representatives, which his own spokesperson characterized as “unprecedented.” Given the persistence of the problem of alleged acts of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers and its magnitude, why should the forced resignation of a senior official at the level of Special Representative be so “unprecedented”? Where has the accountability been for other senior UN officials? Why was the forced resignation limited to the Special Representative and head of peacekeeping operations in CAR, General Babacar Gaye, when the problem is systemic, long-standing and exists beyond just the Central African Republic? In his letter of resignation (posted online by Inner City Press), General Gaye warned that the issue of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers is “a systemic problem warranting consideration at the highest level of the Organisation in close coordination with troop contributing countries, as MINUSCA is unfortunately not the first peacekeeping operation with conduct and discipline issues, particularly early in its lifecycle. And without a systematic approach to the issue, it is unfortunately unlikely to be the last.” The Secretary General, according to his spokesperson, still maintains confidence in the head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations overall, Herve Ladsous. Why? Isn’t he ultimately responsible for the “cancer” spreading throughout the UN peacekeeping operations under his supervision? Why did the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, reportedly try to force out a whistleblower in his human rights organization, Anders Kompass? Mr. Kompass furnished the confidential report documenting abuses of children by French soldiers in the Central African Republic to the French government at its request after Kompass had informed the government about the existence of the report. The French government wanted the report so that it could investigate and possibly prosecute the alleged offenders, as it is supposed to do. Prince Zeid is reported to have objected to the release of confidential information contained in the report, including the identity of victims and witnesses, even if the information was released only to the member state involved. True, the peacekeepers in this case were not operating under UN command. However, that still does not excuse UN bureaucrats who knew and did nothing about allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers from a member state with whom they were cooperating and presumably coordinating. If it were not for Kompass, the critical information contained in the UN’s own human rights report may never have come to light. “I acted with the only concern of stopping the violations as soon as possible and in the context of the UN zero tolerance policy for sexual exploitation and abuse,” Kompass wrote. Within a week of receiving the UN report, French police had started an investigation, which is still ongoing. This is how the system should work. Once informed of serious allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by soldiers under its command, France took the matter seriously and has proceeded accordingly. Prince Zeid has claimed that Kompass’s involvement in transmitting the report to the French government at its request was not “a whistle-blower-type scenario.” To the contrary, once it became clear to Kompass that his senior management was not pursuing this human rights matter with France directly, Kompass acted in classic whistleblower fashion. Prince Zeid’s retaliatory response was to attempt to kill the messenger. Whether Ban Ki-moon’s External Independent Panel will recommend disciplinary action against Prince Zeid or try instead to make excuses for Prince Zeid’s actions remains to be seen. Until Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s stated zero tolerance policy for sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeeping forces is made a day-to-day reality on the ground, the United Nations has no moral authority whatsoever to tell member states, as it often does, how they should treat women and girls within their own countries.