UN sex abuse in Congo

ISN SECURITY WATCH (24/11/04) - The UN is investigating some 150 allegations of sexual abuse by its civilian staff and soldiers serving as peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with some offenses allegedly recorded on videotape.

According to UN authorities, the accusations include rape and pedophilia. Jane Holl Lute, assistant secretary-general in the UN’s peacekeeping department, said there was photographic and video evidence for some of the allegations and that most of the charges had arisen since last spring.

International peacekeepers' involvement with prostitutes has long been a problem for UN personnel serving around the world. Six UN policemen in Bosnia and Herzegovina were sent home in 2000 for involvement in prostitution and trafficking in women. In 2001, UN police officers in Kosovo set up a brothel and a network for trafficking prostitutes.


more: LifeSiteNews.com, The Washington Times, Cape Times, The Scotsman...



why is this not getting coverage and yet abu ghraib took a lion's share of global mainstream media?

Because if this story is true (and given the sources, I'm reserving judgment), this is aberrant behavior on the part of some bad soldiers (which happens in every military action, sadly), while what happened in Abu-Gharib was a systemic program of torture ordered by superior officers (if not coming out of the Pentagon itself?)

Nice try, though.

it has gotten mainstream coverage:

LA Times,

Yahoo News, and

BBC.

is this gonna turn into one of those "well, the UN does it too!" threads? abu gharib got so much attention becuase the U.S. went into Iraq under the guise of defending human rights, by the way. and like jake_lex said, the abuses there were systematic and part of U.S. policy. the abuses of a few UN personell hardly rises to the level of institutionalized abuse. and yes, the UN personell should be punished.

[Edited on Nov 26, 2004 by dead_ringer]

Well, sadly, I'm not surprised. But it's another example of that pathetic right wing hypocrisy of nailing the UN for corruption (like the Iraq food-for aid program) or abuse (like this), but giving the US a pass or explaining it away (like Halliburton or Abu Gharib)

I mentioned this the other day. Here's another BBC link.

Kofi Anan said:

I seem to remember some Americans saying the innocent, held-without-trial terrorist detainees deserved it.

The UN is Satan's playpen, we get it already.

Some United Nations staff who allegedly sexually abused young girls and women in the Democratic Republic of Congo have had their activities caught on film.

and

''I am afraid there is clear evidence that acts of gross misconduct have taken place,'' Annan said Friday while attending a summit in neighboring Tanzania.



so being caught on tape and having annan admit to it is "a nice try"? and how is it "aberrant behavior" when it has happened in bosnia and herzegovina? it seems that these UN ppl are displaying "a systemic program of torture" towards young girls and women, where as the abu gharib scandal hasn't been repeated.

yes, every thread turns into blaming the french, or the UN, or saddam, or liberals for the embarassment and illegality that goes on in iraq. it is as if they are trying to make us forget that this was the mess they created and assured us would go over like wine and roses. it's really fucking boring.

It happens here at least four or five times a week...

and the difference, as any objective observer will palinly recognize, is that annan took responsibility for the actions of UN personell even though he had no direct involvment in their activities. the bush administration denies that it had anything to do with the activities at abu gharib even in the face of hard evidence that indicates clearly otherwise. keep trying.

no, i'm in total recognition that annan has stepped up to the plate, just as i'm in total recognition that all the soldiers involved with abu gharib have been put on trial/dishonorably discharged.

and come on, i know we all hate bush/pentagon, but do you really think he/they are stupid enough to order the torture of prisoners especially in a world where a liberal media is not only global and instantaneous but also out to get you for the slightest thing?

this is what seven seasons of the x-files have done to us...

as already posted it is getting mainstream meida coverage, but probably one of the primary reasons why it isn't getting the coverage like abu ghrab is that kofi anan's lead attorney didn't write a paper justifying these actions. anan stated that the UN will deal with the matter. unlike our governments response to abu ghrab, which was was to nominate the man who came up with such a shameful justification for torture for attorney general. i understand your favorite justification is "hey the UN or france does it too so it must be ok." sell it somewhere else we're not buying it.

edited to add- posting the washington times as a source does little to help your credibility, what fox news didn't have a story on it as well?

[Edited on Nov 26, 2004 by darwinsjoke]

Of course they don't type up a memo saying "push bamboo splinter under the fingernails of all detainees"; but there are ways of making your soldiers doing things without issuing orders. There's a whole bunch of "push them hard, we need the information" type langue that stops just short of "torture them" but gives the impression that a little torturing would be okay.

no, it's what doing actual research has done to me. just a slice of evidence for you to dismiss as liberal bias:

Gonzales Memo, etc..

click on the DOJ link in the first story.


[Edited on Nov 26, 2004 by dead_ringer]

and the New York Post was busy with other things too.

No one wants to see the good UN get its name tarnished, probably more stupid fucking soldiers taking advantage of power. I doubt it has anything to do with upper level UN say, "OK GO RAPE PILLAGE....NOW!" If you think Abu was done by the pentagon or Bush (and staff) your freaking nuts. I wouldnt put it past lower level CIA.

I hate the UN for some fucking laws they are trying to do now, but I cant see them pulling anything bad here. Bad troops, in a enviroment which allows them to get away with it.

I heard that UN workers drink the blood of christian babies.

That's what I heard.

again, have you read any of the memos or investigations are you just blanketly denying white house and pentagon complicity without seeing the evidence?

No, not stupid enough.
Arrogant and audacious enough to do it and know they can get away with it. But they did punish the guy who crafted the legal framework for 'enemy-combatant torture' - by making him attorney general.

Yes.

Ask John Ashcroft if you don't believe me.

Unlike you and I, this administration doesn't know or care fuck all about "the liberal media" or anyone else. They do as they please, and that's the frightening part.

Unfortunately, the problem with pointing the finger here, as you're apparently doing, lies in the fact that it wasn't *those* soldiers that made the decision to go there "under the guise of defending human rights" -- I doubt that the people(s) in charge of making the decision to go there would have commited such crimes, because they have the appropriate morals (human rights, etc etc). You're using a loaded statement under the guise of being entirely relevant, when it really isn't :X

Point being, that if you're going to use that as some sort of argument... Then at least make sure the people in question are directly relevant to the point you're trying to make. The soldiers didn't *choose* to go there under the basis of protecting human rights (being of such a mindframe that it's ok to commit such crimes), which would serve as the basis for your attempt at pointing out the supposed irony. Point the finger where it belongs, agendas aside -- At the soldiers, not at the government.





[Edited on Nov 27, 2004 by Corruptive]

Oh heaven forfend. If the UN's reputation is tarnished, it's their own damn fault. They're unbelievably incompetent, impotent, corrupt, and self-serving. Not to mention extremely anti-American, despite the fact the US pays for a very large portion of the UN's budget. And what do we get for it? Endless abuse, scorn, and subsidizing the expense account lifestyles of a lot of useless bureaucrats and connected 3rd worlders who accomplish.....what, exactly?


[Edited on Nov 27, 2004 by stockula]

dead ringer, I have read all that shit. I actually had to for class. It can be read 10 million ways. Hell I bet you can read shit in government and setup a conspericy that the evil govermnet is full of witches. I got a friend that swears up and down the US gov is controled by a fraternity called the "skull and bones." I had a prision camp out the back door of my work area in baghdad. Those bastards got treated better then the soldiers. I am taking all this with a grain of salt.

You do realize that the prison incident had been brought up several months before, by the DOD? No one covered it till the pictures leaked. Granted all they said was things were done, "were investigating."

Stockula you are absolutely right the UN is shit. I dont think the UN is cool with rapeing all those people. No one wants a black eye. I dont think they are nice guys either.

Those are mostly undisciplined soldiers from foreign countries pulling peacekeeper duties under UN auspices that do all that nasty business. I'm talking about the UN organization as a whole.

alright, and what the hell are you talking about exactly? coherence helps in making a point (just a tip). in one statement you claim that the soldiers didn't make the decision to do what they did, and then by the end you are urging that we point the finger at them and not the "government." try not being so circular - again it helps illustrate your point. policy is made by individuals and individuals are who we hold responsible for human rights violations. you "doubt" that those in charge make decisions becuase they have the "appropriate morals?" since when is your value judgment of what went on in the minds of decison makers in anyway an argument? this isn't fox news here and their rules don't apply, i'm affraid. bitch all you want about "agendas," but i don't make policy, and nor do i have any agenda to push - unless you count enforcing the law - god forbid. the incidents at abu gharib were policy whether that fits into your "moral" scheme of the great war in iraq or not. there is evidence that the white house knew about it, the pentagon knew about it, and the CIA more than knew about it. you seem to be hung up on the idea that leveling criticism at soldiers is bad except at abu gharib where you apply your "a few bad apples" defense.