By Joseph A. Klein, CFP United Nations Columnist ——Bio and Archives--August 19, 2015
World News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
“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.
View Comments
Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom.