Sending UN peacekeepers two years ago to “rebuild” southern Sudan hasn’t brought peace, but according to the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph, it has allegedly brought what is becoming one of the signature activities of UN forces in Africa: peacekeeper rape… of children. According to the Telegraph, UNICEF has been sitting on an internal report of such abuses, and the Telegraph itself has gathered accounts of more than 20 alleged victims, and suggests there may have been hundreds of such cases. Here’s the story, headlined: “UN Staff Accused of Raping Children in Sudan.”
This follows reports over the past three years of UN peacekeeper rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Liberia, in Burundi, in Haiti — pick your country, and you can safely assume the UN has either denied it, refused to comment, or insisted that there is a zero tolerance policy for such abuse. Will someone please explain why on earth the new UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, should for one millisecond entertain the idea of keeping on staff Kofi Annan’s head of peacekeeping these past six years, Jean-Marie Guehenno?
Or (scroll down under the link to Guehenno, for more on these two) why there should be a demand for the further services of Guehenno’s two top aides? These would be a former chief operating officer of Ted Turner’s UN Foundation, who joined Guehenno’s staff as Assistant-Secretary-General in 2003, Jane Holl Lute; and Assistant Secretary-General Hedi Annabi — who was working as director of UN peacekeeping in Africa back when Kofi Annan, then head of peacekeeping himself, in 1994, was in all his neutral rectitude waiting out the Rwandan genocide. One could go on and on, from the massacre at Srebenica; to, more recently, the UN peacekeepers who sat in their UNIFIL bases for six years in southern Lebanon while under their noses Hezbollah trucked in weapons, built bunkers, kidnapped Israeli soldiers and last summer launched a war; to the corruption scandals of recent times surrounding a raft of peacekeeping procurement operations for such stuff as fuel and rations. Note to Ban: Before the UN does any more peacekeeping, how about some housecleaning?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
19 Comments
1. merkur:I’m outraged that the UN has done nothing about this issue, and continues to – oh, hold on.
Wow, so it turns out they have been doing something after all.
Rape is unacceptable, and needs to be dealt with quickly. Denial (of the sort issued by James Ellery in the Telegraph article) helps nobody; but rape needs to be dealt with in a strong legal framework, and as we all know, rape is one of the most difficult offences to prove and successfully prosecute. This is particularly true in peace operations, where the situation is extremely chaotic, local laws and customs may confuse the issue, and power relations between peacekeepers and locals are unhealthy, to say the least.
When a US soldier commits rape, they are rightly tried within their own national framework, because none of us will accept a US soldier being tried by (for example) the government of Iraq. I assume you would want the same approach for any soldier, no matter which country they came from. In which case, why do you persistently blame the United Nations for the actions of soldiers over which it has limited sovereignty – limited by design of the General Assembly and the Security Council, on which the US is a permanent member?
Short version: rape is abhorrent and needs to be punished, but why not go after the countries that supply these soldiers, since they are the ones with the responsibility for punishing them?
Jan 3, 2007 - 4:20 am 2. Steve MacDonald:It would be refreshing and perhaps effective for one or more of the 2008 Presidential candidates to run with the promise of cutting UN funding if there is no wholesale and meaningful reform.
Jan 3, 2007 - 5:25 am 3. bourne2y:Given the track record on peace keepers, oil for food, human rights, ineffective action against Iraq, Iran…..and the list goes on – our funding of this organization is essentially immoral.
“why not go after the countries that supply these soldiers, since they are the ones with the responsibility for punishing them?”
Precisely. Why won’t UN go after them?
UN “peacekeepers” all wear the blue helmet. Don’t think UN has no responsibility here. For the sake if its mission in the world, if not its own credibility, UN should be the FIRST to expose this kind of abuse and to demand that the offenders face justice in their home countries. But UN hides from this responsibility. So someone else has to do it.
BTW, that’s one good reason freedom of the press is so important.
Jan 3, 2007 - 4:53 pm 4. Hillel C. Neuer:UN Watch has demanded the immediate creation of an independent inquiry.
In our Jan. 3, 2007 letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and Human Rights High Commissioner Louise Arbour, we appealed for immediate and powerful action to convince the world that, this time, the UN is serious about having “zero tolerance” for peacekeeper sexual abuse. We urged the following:
1. A high-level investigation led by a team of major international figures with full independent powers to collect and examine information and to prosecute sexual abuse by peacekeepers as well other UN officials.
2. Additionally, the inquiry should follow the chain of responsibility and examine UN officials who were obliged to but failed to take action to prevent such crimes.
3. Separate and additional to the above, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who is responsible for mainstreaming human rights within the UN system, should strongly condemn these abuses, and conduct her own investigation in the region to determine how her office can assist in preventing future cases of UN peacekeeper sexual abuse.
For more, see http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1316871&ct=3352791
Hillel C. Neuer
Jan 4, 2007 - 4:43 am 5. curmudgeon:Executive Director
UN Watch
Geneva, Switzerland
All these perks are a little too embarassing to bring up.
Jan 4, 2007 - 4:43 am 6. Merkur:bourne2y:
As I said, because the UN doesn’t have a mandate to “go after them” – or in fact the capacity. There aren’t UN “military police” in every country around the world, ready to arrest lawbreaking peacekeepers, because nobody would accept such a thing, least of all the US. If you want to start by writing to the government of Bangladesh, whose forces appear to be heavily implicated, then go ahead.
I couldn’t agree more, and that “someone else” is the government of the contributing country, and at a stretch the Security Council that mandates these operations.
Let’s get something straight. This type of abuse happens a lot, it is not acceptable, and the UN has not addressed it sufficiently. But let’s try and propose measures that will actually have a positive impact on the lives of people in places like Sudan, rather than just more criticism that completely misses the point.
Jan 4, 2007 - 9:44 am 7. bourne2y:“that “someone else” is the government of the contributing country”
merkur, I think you misunderstand what I said. I am not saying UN is responsible for discipline of abusive soldiers. I am saying UN should go after these countries to insist that they discipline their own. I said this:
“For the sake of its mission in the world, if not its own credibility, UN should be the FIRST to expose this kind of abuse and to demand that the offenders face justice in their home countries.”
You jump from that statement to falsely suggest I think UN must carry out discipline of the soldiers. You’ve jumped way too far and too fast.
BTW, no organization requires a “mandate” to manage its own operations properly. Proper management which, among other things, includes the reporting of abuses in ANY of its operations, is the responsibility of UN officers up and down the line. Besides, the abuses in Sudan are not limited to soldiers, but also involve civilian employees of UN.
Jan 4, 2007 - 10:45 am 8. Merkur:Fair enough, I admit my mistake. I would still maintain that the UN has an extremely limited capacity to insist that countries discipline their troops. Indeed, doing so may jeopardise the willingness of a country to contribute troops at all, which would be counter-productive.
I completely agree, but have questions about who would be doing the demanding, and in what forum those demands should be made.
Jan 4, 2007 - 12:28 pm 9. bourne2y:“. . .but have questions about who would be doing the demanding, and in what forum those demands should be made.”
Seems to me that the answers are clear. UN has shown neither interest nor willingness to disclose these abuses or make demands of member states in ANY forum. So it falls to investigative reporting to disclose the abuses to the public, and to bring public opinion to bear on offending member states to discipline their own soldiers.
If that embarrasses the member states involved, que sera. There is a remedy that would minimize these embarrassments in the future – it’s called good management. However the odds are that Godot will show up at UN before good management will.
Jan 4, 2007 - 4:42 pm 10. spynverzyon:merkur:
Your comments merely underscore the fundamental, intractable defect of the UN: the UN is accountable to no democratically established rule of law, and in fact merely serves to grant legitimacy to the oppressive governments of the very same countries that sponsor these rapacious “peacekeepers.” You suggest that somebody should
but the only solution you seem to hint at is that somehow, somebody should “go after” the countries (such as Bangladesh) that should be held to account.
Since you admit that the UN has no mandate for accountability, it seems you must be advocating one of the following options:
Regarding the first option, I doubt that anyone who, like you, supports the basic premise of the UN’s existence, would approve what the U.S. would have to do to clean up the corruption, incompetence, and outright brutality that infects so much of what the UN does. If it is the job of sovereign nations to correct other nations’ misdeeds, then why does the UN exist at all? It acts as an obstacle to that process rather than as a vehicle.
Regarding the second option, the one sensible thing you have said on this thread is that “none of us will accept a US soldier being tried by (for example) the government of Iraq.” Indeed – the U.S. should never allow its constitutional principles to be superseded by the powers of a body that plays host to Assad, Ahmedinejad, Kim, and other such parasitic vermin.
So, while you criticize those who “persistently blame the United Nations” for failing to correct crimes it is not authorized to prosecute (though you later admit that “the UN has not addressed [peacekeeper rape] sufficiently”), it is in fact you who are missing the much, much larger point: this problem is endemic to the whole concept of the United Nations. The UN is a sham body with enough political power to send armed men to the Sudan and direct their actions, but without any responsibility for what those armed men actually do when they get there. No amount of “reform” will change this, since the collective, Utopian principle on which the UN is founded is hopelessly flawed. At first blush, the notion of all people joining together for a great group hug of mutual understanding and security seems warm and fuzzy. But unless you want to end up robbed and blind, it’s best, in the first place, never to lie down with thieves and whores.
Jan 4, 2007 - 11:46 pm 11. merkur:bourne2y :
So the way to get Bangladesh to (for example) to take action is to publish poorly thought out arguments with no substantial recommendations on English-language blogs that are read primarily by US citizens who are not working in politics?
The issue I raised was where should these demands be raised, and who should raise them. In this instance, the Telegraph has done an excellent job of reporting on these issues, and it looks like both DPKO and the government of Bangladesh have now responded (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/05/wsudan05.xml).
However, things don’t magically get better when newspapers publish a leaked report – it’s the beginning of a long and difficult process. I guess my broader question to you is, what are your thoughts on the best way to take that process forward?
As I pointed out, it becomes self-defeating if those governments then begin to think twice about contributing in future. These country forces are the backbone of UN peace operations, since western nations generally don’t contribute substantial troop numbers to places like Liberia.
Sadly, this is true.
Jan 5, 2007 - 6:45 am 12. Duke:I love you Claudia and I’ve been a fan for years, but outrage over soldiers raping women in territories they occupy is as old as the Trojan War. It’s always happened and always will happen, and to act shocked is ridiculous. The UN “troops” are simply a collection of Third World unemployed sent there because the Big Powers refused to send their well trained and disciplined troops. The UN sends what is available. What is available ain’t a bunch of nice guys. Want to do something about it? Tell the big powers to send troops—-and MAYBE rape will stop, for a while. A full page ad in the New York Times might work too.
Jan 5, 2007 - 10:31 am 13. merkur:spynverzyon:
The countries that contribute militarily to UNMIS are: Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, China, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgystan, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmis/facts.html).
Could you be more specific about which of these countries you believe have “oppressive governments” (you refer to them later as “lawless states, also) that sponsor “rapacious peacekeepers”? There are a few governments in there which are not especially pleasant, but I’m interested to know which you particularly object to.
What I said was “Let’s try and propose measures that will actually have a positive impact”, by which I hoped that I might get intelligent responses suggesting how to deal with this critical issue. I can offer my ideas if you want, but I’m more interested in hearing what you have to say.
Strawman argument. I have not specifically advocated either of the options that you outline, nor have I implied them.
Tell me what the U.S. would have to do to clean up the U.N. and I’ll tell you if I approve of it or not. Until I hear specifically what you have to say, I can’t really comment on it.
Another strawman argument. I was not referring to US soldiers being tried by the UN, but to US soldiers being tried by the government of the country that they might commit offences in. (Incidentally, I don’t think they should be tried by the UN either.)
I went on to say that “I assume you would want the same approach for any soldier, no matter which country they came from.” Are you arguing that there is one rule for the US and another rule for everybody else when it comes to soldiers’ rights?
So really this isn’t about peacekeepers at all, but about the basic principle of collective action on which the UN is founded. I don’t really know where we can go with that argument, since I believe that principle is an admirable one. However I will ask again: please let us know what you think the alternative is.
Jan 5, 2007 - 11:06 am 14. bourne2y:“So the way to get Bangladesh to (for example) to take action is to publish poorly thought out arguments with no substantial recommendations on English-language blogs that are read primarily by US citizens who are not working in politics?”
Why no. No one has said that. Who would ever think that? Oh, yeah – you would.
Canya give us 1,000 more words on the subject?
Jan 5, 2007 - 2:01 pm 15. merkur:bourne2y: The blog example was to demonstrate that some routes are less productive than others when it comes to applying public pressure. But thanks for the snide reply.
I’ll repeat my original question: what are your thoughts on the best way to take that process forward? I am genuinely interested in knowing how you believe the UN member states should improve its operations.
Jan 7, 2007 - 5:01 am 16. bourne2y:“thanks for the snide reply.”
A little thin-skinned are we, merkur? My reply was not snide but it was accurate. You intended no “example” – your comment was a deliberate misrepresentation of my previous remarks. It was not the first time you misrepresented my remarks. And your above reaction indicates my reply scored a bulls-eye. [cheese, this is BORING.]
“I am genuinely interested in knowing how you believe the UN member states should improve its operations.”
I have no idea what you are interested in.
I’ve said what I wish to say (as have others). You’ve ignored what you wish to ignore, misrepresented what you wish to misrepresent, and staked out virtually no opinions of your own. Instead you’ve mainly sniped at others, starting with the blogowner’s post.
If you have your own ideas how to solve this problem, why don’t you post them? Otherwise, please post whatever additional rebuke to me and the rest of us as will make you happy, and then let’s move on. Nothing more to see here.
Jan 7, 2007 - 3:58 pm 17. merkur:bourne2y: You say that you have no idea what I am in interested in, even though you have just quoted me stating that I am interested in knowing your views on the issue that we’re debating. I’m not interested in trading personal insults: what have I ignored, and what have I misrepresented?
On how to start to solve the problem:
1. Increase the autonomy of the UN Office of Internal Oversight, and ensure funding to operate at full capacity. Set aside a percentage of all peacekeeping budgets for OIOS and prioritise their deployment in field operations (i.e. put them in first, not last as tends to happen). Expand UN investigative capacity in the field, and conclude agreements with contributing governments on their investigating commitment.
2. Promote a UN peacekeeper code of conduct throughout missions, and create units in all missions specifically to promote and investigate issues around personal misconduct (possibly with victim complaints and support mechanisms built in, and looking at appropriate compensation mechanisms).
3, Improve relations between DPKO and operational agencies such as UNICEF, in order to improve the awareness levels of peacekeeping troops in areas such as human rights. Training of this sort before and after deployment (carried out jointly by UN and national government) should be set up to ensure that all troops have a basic level of understanding.
4. Institute performance-related remuneration to countries contributing troops – apply penalties for countries that fail to prosecute offenders, and bonuses for countries that deal with the problem swiftly and effectively. (This needs to be accompanied by ensuring basic troop safety, support and living standards while on mission.)
5. Improve transparency of missions by exposing troop contributions to more public view: publish league tables showing total global contributions (acknowledging their good work) but also grading performance (including dealing with disciplinary issues).
So that’s a start. I’ll say it again: I’m interested in hearing your views on how to approach this issue, but based on your last response, I’m not sure you’ve got any. How’s that for thin-skinned?
Jan 8, 2007 - 4:29 am 18. merkur:bourne2y: and yes, I’m aware that your views of the UN have been informed by your work there (from what I can gather from your other posts), which is why it surprises me that you don’t have more specific complaints or comments.
Jan 8, 2007 - 9:03 am 19. Blog-o-Fascists:Iowahawk: Membership Has Its Privileges
Little Green Footballs
All it takes is winning a thoroughly undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, and a whole world of opportunities opens up: All it takes is winning a thoroughly undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, and a whole world of opportunities opens up:
Oct 15, 2007 - 10:30 pm