« Go for It | Main | World Council of Churches Whackyness »
March 5, 2005
Crisis in the Congo: UN Sex Abuse Charges
Fox News has been at the center of investigating the various scandals that have rocked the United Nations over the past few years. Most people by now are familiar with Oil-for-Food, the one in which during the 90's bureaucrats around the world enriched themselves at the expense of the Iraqi people. Over the past few months new scandals have emerged, ones involving massive abuse of the civilian populations by UN peacekeeping troops.
I'm not going to attempt any new reporting or analysis here, rather just want to keep the issue in the forefront for anyone not following these stories. The reason is not to "bash" the UN, as some would allege,but rather to illustrate how the institution as it now stands often does more harm than good. It is my belief that at this point, the onus is on the defenders of the UN to explain why we should continue to pay all of our dues to this outfit.
On with the latest scandal. First, a bit of background;
Five years ago, more than 10,000 peacekeepers working for the United Nations came to the Democratic Republic of Congo,to help end a six-nation war. But reports of sexual abuse of local women and girls began soon after they arrived from Morocco, South Africa, Australia, India and Europe.Eventually, someone caught on. But the response has been too little too late
In January, the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services released a report claiming peacekeepers regularly had sex with the Congolese women and girls in exchange for food or small sums of money."We have had and continue to have a serious problem of sexual exploitation and abuse," William Lacy Swing, the U.N. special representative to Congo, said.
The scandal intensified after the recent discovery of hundreds of violent, pornographic photos and videotapes of children, supposedly taken by a U.N. official. The images depict naked Congolese children in positions of severe physical degradation performing sexual acts with and under the control of a man, the United Nations admits, who is one of their own.
The worst part is that this sort of abuse is nothing new
The Congo scandal is not the first time U.N. peacekeepers have come under scrutiny. Past reports of ill practices surfaced in Cambodia, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo and Somalia. Despite that history and after four years of sex abuse reports by U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo, there still is no procedure of investigation or accountability on the ground.
UN officials have of late insisted that they have a "zero tolerance" policy toward such abuses. But Fox News reporter Steve Harrigan, on the scene in the Congo, reports otherwise
There are many reasons why this is allowed to occur. First, you have troops from third world countries who are often more than organized mobs. They more resemble an eighteenth-century European army than a modern force, back in the days when looting was an accepted way of exacting retribution on an enemy and rewarding one's own troops.When night falls in Goma, U.N. peacekeepers can still be seen leaving their base in search of sex.
Some of them duck down in the rocks with prostitutes in lava fields. Others patronize brothels located near the base. These are clear violations of the rules under "zero tolerance," which includes a strict curfew and a ban on contact between U.N. peacekeepers and local women.
The UN pays a per diem to countries who contribute troops. It is a fixed amount, $1,028 per month per soldier/peacekeeper, regardless of the country that sent him. The issue is that it costs a European or American taxpayer much more per soldier than it does a third-world taxpayer. The result is that peacekeeping is a money maker for these countries. What this means is that when there are abuses no one wants to rock the boat for fear of upsetting the gravy train.
UN bureaucrats from the third world see the UN as a gold mine, where they can live in New York or Paris and receive salaries unimaginable in their home countries. They do not want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs.
Then you have the simple fact that the UN is accountable only to itself. There is no incentive to root out and eliminate abuse.
I used to think that the UN was at least good for humanitarian missions. Then came it's abject failure to deal with the south-east Asian tsunami disaster, and the revelations of these sex abuse scandals.
I've written quite a bit about the United Nations on this blog, as regular readers know. Among my posts are these:
Worse and Worse at the UN
The Harmful UN
A Perfect Knave
Alternatives to the UN
UN Alternative Update
Sunday Update
The Washington Times has a good article this morning on UN peacekeeping operations. It's just as I suspected; some third-world countries use this as a money-making operation:
To be fair, there are other objectives than money
Because the United Nations pays a flat rate of $1,028 per person per month, there is a built-in disincentive for the better trained and equipped nations to contribute people.
Every American, European, Australian and Canadian peacekeeper is subsidized by their respective governments, while lesser-paid African and South Asian soldiers actually generate income for their nations.
For some of the poorer nations -- Senegal, Niger and Ghana, for example -- sending soldiers on a U.N. mission is a win-win situation, a way to keep peacetime troops combat-ready while providing hard currency.
Bangladesh, for one, nets about $150 million a year from its peacekeeping participation."To some, our involvement in other countries may be controversial," Bangladesh's U.N. ambassador, Iftekher Chowdhury, said recently.
But Dhaka long ago figured out that it's possible to do well by doing good. A sustained commitment to peacekeeping has allowed the government to forge strong ties with far more powerful nations, establish future trade relationships in Africa and leverage its international involvement into global prestige, he said.And the armies of some countries, such as India, have performed admirably
"You know, we have never lost an election" in the United Nations, Mr. Chowdhury said, ticking off a list of U.N. bodies and subsidiaries where Bangladesh has a seat.
India takes its peacekeeping so seriously that it has created a training center for officers, and recommends that other contributing nations follow its example of keeping its peacekeepers busy with noncombat tasks, such as running clinics and digging wells for local people.Indian troops have not been accused of wrongdoing in recent years, a fact that Indian Ambassador Nirupam Sen and U.N. officials quickly volunteer.
"We are the backbone of the [upcoming] Sudan mission," Mr. Sen said.
Unfortunately, India is the exception rather than the rule. As all of this illustrates, the United Nations is a mess and needs to clean up it's act immediately. Because as things stand now, this organization does more harm than good.
Posted by Tom at March 5, 2005 9:39 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/337
