WE'RE FROM THE U.N., AND WE'RE HERE TO PROTECT YOU

If anyone says that to you, RUN.

U.N. Sex Crimes in Congo
Prostitution, Rapes Run Rampant
By BRIAN ROSS, DAVID SCOTT and RHONDA SCHWARTZ

Feb. 11, 2005 - Widespread allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse of Congolese women, boys and girls have been made against U.N. personnel who were sent to help and protect them -- despite a so-called zero tolerance policy touted by the United Nations toward such behavior.

The range of sexual abuse includes reported rapes of young Congolese girls by U.N. troops; an Internet pedophile ring run from Congo by Didier Bourguet, a senior U.N. official from France; a colonel from South Africa accused of molesting his teenage male translators; and estimates of hundreds of underage girls having babies fathered by U.N. soldiers who have been able to simply leave their children and their crimes behind.

Ravaged by decades of civil war, and one of the poorest countries in the world, Congo has relied on the United Nations for both military protection and humanitarian aid.

"The U.N. is there for their protection, so when the protectors become violators, this is particularly egregious," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch who investigated the allegations on behalf of her organization. "This is particularly bad."

William Swing, a former U.S. ambassador to Congo who now heads the U.N. peacekeeping mission there, admitted the sexual crimes were a black mark on the United Nations.

"It pains us all," he said. "It's absolutely odious. And we're determined to wipe it out."

But Swing said the problem was just recently brought to his attention, and that only a small percentage of the 11,000 U.N. personnel in Congo were involved.

"A few people have managed to basically cause disgrace for the mission and for the U.N., and that's why we're determined to conquer it. I have sent a dozen home," Swing said. But human rights investigators have reported a far wider, even systemic problem, recording more than 150 allegations against U.N. employees in Congo.

And there is what human rights investigators have called "survival sex."

"We have heard cases where they have traded eggs for sex or bread for sex or a jar of peanut butter for sex," said Van Woudenberg. "These are not people who have very much. So they hang around the outskirts of these U.N. bases in order to try and get a handout, a little food. Maybe they can sell some bananas or some peanuts. And it has become not uncommon that peacekeepers invite these girls in -- and of course the younger the better, because there's less chance that they will be infected by HIV/AIDS."

The United Nations has documented cases where this has happened to girls as young as 11, according to Van Woudenberg.

Breaking Curfew

Paying for sex, with food or cash, is strictly prohibited by U.N. rules. And even being in a place where prostitutes are available is supposedly prohibited by the U.N. Code of Conduct.

The United Nations said its crackdown on sex crimes includes a tough dusk-to-dawn curfew for U.N. personnel soldiers and a midnight deadline for civilian employees.

But at Café Doga, in the eastern town of Bunia, ABC News cameras caught a group of U.N. peacekeepers well after the curfew, partaking in drinks, dancing at a bar filled with prostitutes, and later loading several of the prostitutes into U.N. vehicles and driving away.

Swing said he had been unaware of such U.N. fraternization with prostitutes. "Well, perhaps my senior management there wasn't aware of it, and I will find out right away," he said. And when it was pointed out that several of the senior management were in fact leaving at the same time U.N. personnel left with the prostitutes, Swing responded, "I will look into it. It's not yet where we want to be but we will get there, I promise you."

U.N. peacekeeping troops first came to Congo five years ago to stop a raging border war, and the first reports of sex crimes began within a year of their arrival.

Men from roughly 50 different countries make up the U.N. forces in Congo, and the United Nations does not conduct background checks. Furthermore, U.N. troops are exempt from prosecution in Congo.

A contingent of South African troops was removed from Congo after numerous allegations of sex crimes against them. South African Lt. Col. Koos van Breda, accused of sexually molesting his teenage male translator, is now home awaiting trial in military court.

Crime and Punishment?

Congolese officials say scores of young girls in Congo were lured into sex with a senior U.N. logistics officer named Didier Bourguet, a French citizen who photographed his victims having sex with him. In one photo, on Bourguet's hard drive, which was obtained by ABC News, a tear can be seen rolling down the cheek of a victim.

Congolese officials suspect Bourguet was sharing these computer images with others in the United Nations, but he was sent back to France to face prosecution before a full investigation could be completed. He is currently in French custody awaiting trial.

"He is no longer a threat to the Congolese population," said Swing. "He's no longer effacing the image of the U.N. here. And I think it showed that we took it seriously."

Claude Deboosere-Lepidi, Bourguet's lawyer, said his client admits he was involved in systematic sexual involvement with minors that included other U.N. officials, and that the United Nations permitted an environment in which sex with young girls was tolerated.

Swing promised that the United Nations would make an effort to find the young women Bourguet photographed and include them in the U.N. victim support program. No such actions have yet been taken.

In fact, none of the victims interviewed for this story had received any help, of any kind, psychological or financial, from the United Nations.

A Culture of Fear

One 14-year-old girl from Bunia was on her way to the village well for water, local police said, when two blue-helmeted U.N. troops, from Morocco, stopped her. One of the soldiers raped her, she said.

"We know that these people came to bring peace to this country," Dieudonne Shabani, the victim's mother, told ABC News. "So how come the same men who come to bring peace are doing this to my daughter? It really revolted me."

The family took their devastated daughter to the police and a doctor from an aid group filed a rape report with the United Nations. The next day, the family said the Moroccan commander from the United Nations came and insulted them by offering money for the case to be dropped. Nothing has been heard since.

At this point, said the Rev. Alfred Buju, the town's Catholic priest, the people fear the U.N. personnel.

"They're saying even to young girls, be careful to not be taken by those peacekeepers," he said.

Buju had his own exposure to the U.N. problem when he said he witnessed two Pakistani U.N. troops sexually assault a teenage girl in a church convent one morning last spring. After filing a report with U.N. officials, he said he was promised that the two offending soldiers would be expelled from the U.N. mission. But one month ago, Buju said he saw one of the soldiers involved in the assault at a U.N. checkpoint 25 miles away.

No Child Left Behind?

Another gaping problem U.N. officials failed to address is the hundreds of babies born to Congolese women and fathered by U.N. personnel.

Aimee Tsesi, of Bunia, said her 15-year-old deaf mute daughter was raped and impregnated by a U.N. soldier from Uruguay, and that she was turned away at the gates of the U.N. camp when she went for assistance.

"The U.N. is not able to give me food or money for my grandson," she said. "But if the U.N. hadn't brought this soldier here my daughter would not have become pregnant. And I would not be going through this suffering."

"What's going to happen to those children?" Van Woudenberg asked. "These are not women who are likely to find a lot of support for their children. So this is creating a whole different level of problem in the Congo."

And as of now, the United Nations said it will not take direct responsibility for babies abandoned by its troops, though Swing said the mission is "currently looking at a way to have a clearer and more viable paternity policy."

On the issue of reducing sexual misconduct among U.N. peacekeepers, however, Swing took a vow of personal responsibility.

"When you have an issue as serious as sexual exploitation and abuse of poor people you're trying to help, the answer is no, one can never do enough," Swing said. "Did I do enough? No. Do I need to do more? Yes. And I will."

To date, of the hundreds of allegations of sex crimes involving U.N. personnel, only two have faced any kind of prosecution.

"There's a lot of good words being said and I think there's a lot of good will about trying to deal with this, but we're not seeing concrete actions," said Van Woudenberg. "If you rape someone you can go home and never have to face any kind of criminal prosecution or any kind of serious deterrent. "This is unacceptable. How can this go on?"

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/UnitedNations/story?id=489306&page=1

Troops taking part in U.N. missions are under the control of their own national military. It is their responsibility to control their own soldiers. It is the U.N.'s responsibility to force the countries to act in a just and humane manner. It seems they are failing and this is a problem

The U.N should impose Sanctions on Countries that allow their troops to behave in such an appalling manner, Your article doesnt mention which countries would be affected (except morrocco). If there are American troops will your outrage persist?

If there are American troops working under the un flag Stockula will call for the impeachment of gwb.

but we dont give our gi's blue helmets.

i don't think its so much a case of the UN employing despicable people as the place where they're being put.
i don't think it's possible to retain ones humanity when you spend prolonged periods of time in those hellholes, anyone would gradually become more depraved and the UN doesn't have the manpower for a healthy troop rotatation to keep their men sane.

Many can justify their actions by believing the Congolese are less than them. I am sure if it were sweet Canadian or what have you teens there would have been an outrage years ago. But if your country is poor and does not have somthing rich countries want then no one really cares.

I disagree. I think that a few of the people in the UN peacekeeping forces will be despicable, really nasty, people. The UN has to do everything it can to prevent those people causing more harm.

I condemn American troops for their poor behaviour; I do the same for UN forces. Does Stockula?

Bust the bastards, dishonourable discharge and criminal trials. And the commanders who weren't in control of their men.

But I don't believe Stockula would have posted this if it had been, say, OAU peacekeepers.

Remember this is the same guy who fails to see why Abu Gharib is a big deal.

The way conservatives can turn their outrage on and off is astounding.

you mean, kind of like how liberals think that killing babies is OK, but not terrorists and murderers? like that?

Well this thread is going to be a high water mark of intelligent debate.

Yeah, exactly.

I guess it doesn't occur to conservatives to be offended by all violations of human rights, UN and US alike. Just the ones Republicans didn't authorize.

Bust them, of course.

Hello?

You persist in using the wrong terminology, and demonizing people with it. Strawman arguments don't help your case.

Firstly, babies are not fetuses.

Secondly, not every person on death row is guilty, and a signifigant percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were not terrorists.

There are good points to be made on the conservative side, and you're not making them.

Have you ever seen a 4D ultrasound of a "fetus"? Even very early on they are just little babies, little humans inside their mother. I used to work at a fertility clinic and have observed many things first hand that forever changed my outlook on fetuses. I think abortion should be kept legal, but don't kid yourself, it is killing little babies.

Miscarriages are, too. Would you suggest murder charges for mothers who miscarry?

There is a line drawn and a distinction made because there is a difference.

Fetuses are potential babies, whether they are brought to term, aborted, or fail in the womb and miscarry.

Miscarriages are not intentional. That is the difference.

Some people can't live on their own either. If someone needs kidney dialysis should we have the option of just giving up on them and kill them because they need help to live. A fetus is the same way. The fetus is a human that needs the help of the mother to live until they are strong enough to leave the womb.

I won't comment anymore in this thread, I think I have hijacked it enough already.

I thought that was how the US medical system generally worked. If they're poor and have no insurance, that is.

While I guess no one else is letting it drop so...

I didn't call anyone anything. If you read my other post you might also see that I am for keeping abortion legal. Stiles said fetuses, not embryos or zygotes. I think they should limit abortions to ten weeks or less while the "baby" is still essentially a blob of flesh. Anything after that point and I believe that the "baby" is too close to being human in the way we think of it.

10 weeks!

I agree on the desirability of a:abstaining b:using B/C c:using emergency B/C d:having an abortion as early as possible, but 10 weeks is way too low. There are very many reasons why women don't get an abortion earlier, and a 10 week limit would punish some women.

Also, you mention "too close to being human as we think of it"; this kind of thing always confuses me. What is humaness? Genetics? Functionality?

I fully support abortion at *any* point of the pregnancy. I've even posted here saying I support "abortion" *after* the baby has been born.

Dutch Doctors want to Kill Little Babies

I understand that these kind of threads often degenerate into fierce flaming, so I hope you realise that I'm attempting to discuss this with you and I'm not attacking you for your opinion, or trying to change your mind.

I understand your point of view and at one point I had the same view. After working at a fertility clinic and seeing what babies look like using 4D Ultrasound and how they moved and smiled etc... I changed my mind. It is a grey area about when a baby should be considered too "human" to be aborted. I was just putting my view out there and explain the way I feel about the issue. I based the ten weeks off of what I have seen in my experience at the clinic. I am not a doctor but many of the doctors I worked with had the same view. The clinic did perform "reductions" when too many embryos attached to the uterus and I never had a problem with any of that. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either. Just trying to give people another point of view.

Here is a baby, fetus, whatever at 15 weeks:
4D Ultrasound

I was always under the impression that smiling was a conditioned response learned from human interaction. The curling of a lip in a snapshot shouldn't be confused for a smile.

Everything you said would be true if I had actually said anything like what you think I said. I do not believe anyone on here that has had an abortion is morally equivilant to being a child killer. I also said nothing of morality. Why are you still attempting to put words in my mouth? When I said it is killing babies I mean that I see little difference between a 20 week fetus and a 40 week baby other than size and ability to live without the help of the mother. I am not judging anyone, I am just stating my opinion. I doubt if many women on here had late term abortions anyway and that is what I am really against.

That looks like an alien from the x-files

[Edited on Feb 12, 2005 by tony5]

There is a debate on that. Read this.