As the U.N. investigates new allegations of sexual abuse by peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, most troop contributing countries continue to evade accounting for how they handle disciplinary actions.

U.N. peacekeepers operate on four continents. Their numbers have risen nine-fold since 1999. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

A senior U.N. official who asked for anonymity told IPS, “Although there have been statistical reductions in the number of allegations, sexual abuse involving peacekeepers is still rampant, despite pronouncements that they have been curbed.”

In DR Congo, two peacekeepers – reportedly an Indian and a Tunisian – have been accused of sexual abuse, although their identities and the specifics of the cases are protected under the U.N.’s confidentiality policy.

According to the United Nations Conduct and Disciplinary Unit, of the 45 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse against U.N. peacekeepers brought in the first six months of this year, 18 involved minors.

The charges were reported to the 39 troop contributing countries. However, only 13 governments have responded to the U.N. regarding their progress in investigating the charges and taking action, according to the New York Times.

This figure is in line with the numbers from previous years: in 2009, the U.N. sent 82 requests for information on actions taken by national authorities concerning misconduct related to sexual exploitation and abuse, and received 14 responses.

In 2008, the U.N. sent 69 such requests and received eight responses on action taken, while in 2007, 67 requests were made and 23 responses received.

“The U.N. cannot tackle this issue alone,” Anayansi Lopez of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), told IPS. “It needs the full support of all member states to ensure that zero tolerance is a reality.”

“While allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse have decreased from 357 in 2006 to 112 in 2009, one case is one too many, and the U.N. is making every effort to target this issue,” she told IPS. “In 2008, there were 83 such allegations, following 127 allegations in 2007.”

However, according to the senior U.N. official, not only are the allegations “a blemish on peacekeeping operations… there could be hundreds more that have been undocumented primarily due to the remote locations of the operations.”

Allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeeping and humanitarian personnel first came to light in the 1990s in the Balkans, Cambodia and Timor Leste, and in West Africa in 2002 and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2004.

Official reports publicly surfaced in 2004, with the U.N. mission in DR Congo the first to be singled out followed by Haiti, Liberia and other peacekeeping missions around the world.

In DR Congo, approximately 150 allegations were filed against U.N. troops. The offences – some of which were captured on videotape – included pedophilia, rape, and prostitution, according to a classified U.N. report that was obtained by the Washington Post.

Yet comprehensive record-keeping and data tracking of such allegations and subsequent actions did not begin until 2006, Lopez told IPS. This left an approximately decade-long delay in formally tracking the allegations.

One year later, in 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that in Haiti, “girls as young as 13 were having sex with U.N. peacekeepers for as little as one dollar”.

Some 114 Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti were removed from their posts after those allegations surfaced.

Palitha T.B. Kohona, Sri Lanka’s ambassador to the U.N., told IPS, “It is noted that the U.N. considers Sri Lanka’s reaction to the allegations as an exemplary case where a national government has taken serious measures in response to allegations of sexual exploitation by U.N. peacekeepers. Sri Lanka has a firm policy of not tolerating any infractions of U.N. standards by its peacekeeping troops.”

In July 2008, the Department of Field Support launched the Misconduct Tracking System, a global database and confidential tracking system for all allegations of misconduct.

Lopez told IPS the examples of action taken by the U.N. include demotion, termination of contract, and referral to local authorities or national governments for further action. Military contingents deployed on peacekeeping missions remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of their own government.

In December 2007, the General Assembly adopted a Resolution on Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Missions to address the extension of national jurisdiction by member states to cover criminal misconduct of U.N. officials or experts on mission.

However, a high-level source told IPS, “Sierra Leonean and Sri Lankan efforts are the only serious responses to these allegations that are publically known. Most member states lack sincere commitment to eradicate sexual exploitation and abuse as evident by their actions.”

The U.N. has a three-pronged strategy to eliminate sexual exploitation and abuse: prevention of misconduct, enforcement of U.N. standards of conduct and remedial action.

Last month, Under-Secretary-General Susanna Malcorra from the Global Field Support office of DPKO discussed the revision of support strategy in terms of procedure and financing. Her discussion did not include procedures to address the allegations.

Gay rights organisations are heartened by the official United Nations accreditation granted to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHR) last week, after a prolonged three-year struggle.

Consultative status allows LGBT NGOs to share information and analysis of the abuses and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity taking place around the world at U.N. meetings, as well as organise events on U.N. premises.

It was not until December of 2008 that the subject of LGBT rights was actively discussed in the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

ECOSOC, consisting of 54 member states of the U.N., grants consultative status to NGOs after reviewing recommendations made by its subsidiary body – the NGO Committee – which screens the applications.

Now, one of the world’s largest global LGBT organisations, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex Association (ILGA), is hopeful that its application will gain similar consideration.

Theunissen could not comment on the organisation’s progress since ILGA initially applied.

Although ILGA declined to comment in regards to the submission of their application, the organisation has a page on their website titled, “ILGA at the United Nations,” which remains blank, but ready to be updated.

However, the process for status to be granted to organisations is clearly a lengthy one.

Despite what the IGLHRC argued to be full compliance with all procedures, the organisation stated it faced constant deferrals, homophobic questioning, and procedural roadblocks in the ECOSOC NGO Committee.

The group’s primary criticism regarded the length of time it took to receive status, arguing that three years, in addition to the logistics of the procedure, was excessive.

However, Theunissen told IPS, “In the last (May) session of the Committee in 2010, it reviewed 242 applications and recommended 76 applications for consultative status. The rest were deferred. A few organisations have been deferred for a long period.”

The NGO Committee voted to block any action at the session held on Jun. 3 regarding its application. The motion carried, preventing consultative status being granted and delaying approval.

In June, although the U.S. demanded that immediate action be taken given the merits of the IGLHRC’s application, Egypt called for a motion of no-action on that vote, arguing that IGLHRC’s answers to its questions were not “sufficiently straight”, according to the press release issued by the organisation.

Nihal Saad, of the Press Office of the Egyptian Consulate to the U.N., told IPS that Egypt opposed status being granted because the subsidiary committee at ECOSOC was still in the process of reviewing all applications and requests from other NGOs.

“Some of them even date back to 1999 like the Kashmiri- American Council, so to single out that particular application reflects a precedent that jeopardises the legitimacy and the credibility of the committee,” he continued.

However, U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative Rosemary DiCarlo led an ECOSOC resolution pushing to overrule the NGO Committee, requesting that consultative status be granted to IGLHRC.

The U.S.-led resolution passed with 23 states in favour, 13 opposed, 13 abstentions, and five absences – making IGLHRC the first U.S.-based LGBT organisation in over 10 years to gain consultative status with ECOSOC, according to the organisation itself.

“The U.S., notably, did vote to approve other non-U.S. based organisations in previous years under the previous administration,” Perle told IPS. “What is clear is that the U.S. took a leadership role in advocating for IGLHRC’s application and, more broadly, non-discrimination in the NGO Committee of ECOSOC.”

DiCarlo stated, “The IGLHRC can join the U.N.’s vibrant community of civil society organisations, as it so richly deserves.”

One such civil organisation is the Brazilian Federation of LGBT Groups (Associação Brasileira de Gays, Léssicas e Transgêneros, ABGLT), the first LGBT organisation from the Southern Hemisphere to receive consultative status.

ABGLT Brazil joined about 3,000 other NGOs with consultative status at the U.N. last year, on Jul. 27.

However, only a handful of LGBT groups have received such status.

According to IGLHRC, “we are only the tenth organisation working primarily for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) human rights to gain such status at the United Nations.”

With the exception of the Federation of Dutch Associations for Integration of Homosexuality COC Netherlands (COC), ECOSOC has only granted such groups’ consultative status after first overturning negative recommendations from its NGO Committee.

When asked why the NGO Committee consistently denied requests for such status to IGLHRC and like organisations, Theunissen told IPS that this was a question for each of the individual member states of the NGO Committee to answer.

Theunissen declined to comment when asked if the organisation’s inherent controversy had anything to do with the NGO Committee’s resistance.

Theunissen told IPS, “Every NGO has the right to apply for consultative status.”