Peacekeepers 'abusing children'

[[R_H]]

BBC

Children as young as six are being sexually abused by peacekeepers and aid workers, says a leading UK charity.

Children in post-conflict areas are being abused by the very people drafted into such zones to help look after them, says Save the Children.

After research in Ivory Coast, southern Sudan and Haiti, the charity proposed an international watchdog be set up.

Save the Children said it had sacked three workers for breaching its codes, and called on others to do the same.

The three men were all dismissed in the past year for having had sex with girls aged 17 - which the charity said was a sackable offence even though not illegal.

The UN has said it welcomes the charity's report, which it will study closely.

Save the Children says the most shocking aspect of child sex abuse is that most of it goes unreported and unpunished, with children too scared to speak out.

No support

A 13-year-old girl, "Elizabeth" described to the BBC how 10 UN peacekeepers gang-raped her in a field near her Ivory Coast home.

"They grabbed me and threw me to the ground and they forced themselves on me... I tried to escape but there were 10 of them and I could do nothing," she said.

"I was terrified. Then they just left me there bleeding."

No action has been taken against the soldiers.

The report also found that aid workers have been sexually abusing boys and girls.

"In recent years, some important commitments have been made by the UN, the wider international community and by humanitarian and aid agencies to act on this problem," said Save the Children UK chief executive Jasmine Whitbread.

"However, all humanitarian and peacekeeping agencies working in emergency situations, including Save the Children UK, must own up to the fact that they are vulnerable to this problem and tackle it head on."

After research involving hundreds of children from Ivory Coast, southern Sudan and Haiti, the charity said better reporting mechanisms needed to be introduced to deal with what it called "endemic failures" in responding to reported cases of abuse.

It also said efforts should be made to strengthen worldwide child protection systems.

Heather Kerr, Save the Children's Ivory Coast country director, says little is being done to support the victims.

"It's a minority of people but they are using their power to sexually exploit children and children that don't have the voice to report about this.

"They are suffering sexual exploitation and abuse in silence."

Save the Children says the international community has promised a policy of zero-tolerance to child sexual abuse, but that this is not being followed up by action on the ground.

A UN spokesman, Nick Birnback, said that it was impossible to ensure "zero incidents" within an organisation that has up to 200,000 personnel serving around the world.

"What we can do is get across a message of zero tolerance, which for us means zero complacency when credible allegations are raised and zero impunity when we find that there has been malfeasance that's occurred," he told the BBC.

[LadyTevar]

There are no words in any language to express the outrage and shame.

Well... maybe there is one phrase:
"Killin's too good fer 'em."

[Maxentius]

How many of these peacekeepers are drawn from 1st world UN member nations (i.e. European), and how many are from regional militaries?

[[R_H]]

How many of these peacekeepers are drawn from 1st world UN member nations (i.e. European), and how many are from regional militaries?

I watched the report on BBC World News about this, and they were talking about a 13 year old girl who had been gang raped by 10 Pakistani peacekeepers (their nationality is not mentioned in the article though).

[[R_H]]

Pakistan contributes the most troops to the UN peacekeeping forces, followed by Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Jordan. Source (PDF)

[Darth Wong]

Historically, soldiers have always done this sort of thing. We only find it surprising because we live in some kind of twisted militarist fantasyland where soldiers are always assumed to be people of good character. Even on this forum, I've repeatedly seen people saying idiotic things like "I don't see how soldiers could do something like that."

[The Grim Squeaker]

The Beeb's radio broadcast had soldiers from all nations invovled in this.

As Wong said though, why the surprise? There's a most no chance of consequences against them, since in most cases complaining is against the raped child's "interests", since the chance of getting sent back is far worse than rape (Or the chance of continued rape). The families of some of the children only agreed to talk on the condition that charges would not be bought against the soldiers, for some (horrible) perspective.

No consequences=People will take advantage of it. And anyone.

[Maxentius]

Historically, soldiers have always done this sort of thing. We only find it surprising because we live in some kind of twisted militarist fantasyland where soldiers are always assumed to be people of good character. Even on this forum, I've repeatedly seen people saying idiotic things like "I don't see how soldiers could do something like that."

In one of my first year history courses, the professor devoted an entire lecture to the conduct of the 30 Years War. I was frankly shocked by how many of my classmates (read: nearly all) were completely unaware of, and shocked by the atrocities committed on both sides. Many complained it was unnecessary; I find that enlightening people to exactly what kind of horrific acts are perpetrated by soldiers, even half a millennium ago, is something that must be done in order to have any insight into the fundamental nature of conflict itself.

That aside, I do wonder if there are any statistics regarding reported incidents carried out by UN Peacekeepers on a national basis. While I'm sure that, say, French Peacekeepers are just as prone to committing repugnant abuses like this, I'd be curious to see if there's any link between the home country and proliferation of crimes. Granted, though, French Peacekeepers aren't nearly as voluminous as Pakistani, so it's probably a moot idea.

[cosmicalstorm]

Personally I would assume that soldiers from third world countries would be more prone to commit these acts than soldiers from Europe and North America simply because the prevailing culture in the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa is very hostile towards women in general.

[Coyote]

I think the "soldiers = moral" idea is an outgrowth of the idea that a soldier should, in theory, be disciplined to not give in to base impulses. It's one of those things that may be so on paper, but not in fact. And, of course, there's the idea that we've sent in Peacekeepers, so now everything should be fine-- but shock & horror, they are not!

Many Peacekeepers are drawn from crappy countries where rights in general are a fleeting thing, and the idea of rights or dignity for women & girls is laughable. And then, yeah. we're surprised when this happens.

[CaptainZoidberg]

I find it ironic that the sexually abusive peacekeepers mostly come from heavily-muslim states that suppress sexuality.

[Coyote]

I find it ironic that the sexually abusive peacekeepers mostly come from heavily-muslim states that suppress sexuality.

Without a healthy outlet, they'll succumb to their more primal urges. Especially since females are just garbage dumps for excess sperm, and infidel females all the more so.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I find it ironic that the sexually abusive peacekeepers mostly come from heavily-muslim states that suppress sexuality.

I find it completely unironic. Suppression of sexuality is a millenia-old tool of control by the privileged few over the teeming masses. Pent-up sexual energy finds its way out as violence which can be militarily useful. Guilty feelings can also be harnessed to solidify the state religion's control of the populace as well.

It is working exactly as designed.

[Eulogy]

What a way to ensure constant violence and hatred. I wouldn't be surprised if "Peacekeepers" (ha!) started being victims of terrorist-style attacks, and many civilains start attacking the UN just on principle.

"Get rid of those UN soldiers! If you don't they'll rape your kids!"

[Sea Skimmer]

So a bunch of ‘soldiers’ the UN mostly dragged up from third world shitholes to guard another third world shithole are pieces of shit? Well, it’s only happened on almost every other UN peacekeeping operation ever. I don’t feel like finding links back to all the shit they did in the Congo in the 1960s (seriously, everyone fighting in that war should have been nuked, the UN troops first) but here’s a few other examples

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar12.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Nov26.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5260210.stm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=42088

[fgalkin]

Ah yes, UN Peacekeepers. Those nice friendly people who did these things in the Congo, in Haiti and Liberia (where peacekeepers routinely forced girls as young as 11 to have sex in exchange for food), in Bosnia and Kosovo (U.N. police operated brothels and trafficked women from Eastern Europe to engage in prostitution), in East Timor, in Somalia (roasting a 16 year old boy over a brazier, as well as the usual rape), in Cambodia, and now, in Darfur. of course, the icing on the cake is the fact that the deputy commander of the UN force in Sudan is now accused of massacres and assasinations during the Rwandan genocide. He may get away with it, too given that UN peacekeepers are exempted from war crimes prosecutions.

And it's not people from third world shitholes that do these things, either. Plenty of European UN officials were implicated in these scandals.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, I can't understand why that is so shocking? Because people had "GLORIOUS MORAL PEPAL" banner painted all over UN soldiers? Seriously, Wong is right. The "shock" is that there's absolutely no shock at all.

[Battlehymn Republic]

None of this would be happening under Commissioner Lal's watch.

[Sidewinder]

I think one reason people are shocked is because of the nationalist propaganda that was promoted during and after World War I, when soldiers were seen as "citizen-soldiers" instead of "violent professionals who'll hopefully commit violence on foreigners instead of our citizens." Now, the soldiers are not just a gang of criminals trying to avoid prison time by doing another kind of time (although such deals are still offered to criminals), they're a fraternity (or sorority) of "upstanding citizens" whose ranks include many of our own relatives (in my case, I had an uncle in the US Navy Reserves, an aunt and two cousins in the Army Reserves).

[phred]

Personally I would assume that soldiers from third world countries would be more prone to commit these acts than soldiers from Europe and North America simply because the prevailing culture in the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa is very hostile towards women in general.

I doubt it. In America and Europe you can go to jail for raping a 13 year old girl. In the places UN peacekeepers are sent to they are the closest thing to law thats available. This of course leads to people realizing "Hey I can get away with it here", and following an impulse they probably would have suppressed at home.

[cosmicalstorm]

Personally I would assume that soldiers from third world countries would be more prone to commit these acts than soldiers from Europe and North America simply because the prevailing culture in the Middle East, parts of Asia and Africa is very hostile towards women in general.

I doubt it. In America and Europe you can go to jail for raping a 13 year old girl. In the places UN peacekeepers are sent to they are the closest thing to law thats available. This of course leads to people realizing "Hey I can get away with it here", and following an impulse they probably would have suppressed at home.

Yeah im sure they do it too, but on a smaller scale than their third world counterparts.

[Beowulf]

The difference is that we (first world nations) generally hold our troops accountable. Third world nations don't. These actions aren't a shock because third world militaries are a law unto themselves, which isn't the case with first world militaries.

[Kanastrous]

The difference is that we (first world nations) generally hold our troops accountable.

So long as they're of sufficiently low rank, to be held accountable.

Frequently, not even then.

[Sidewinder]

The difference is that we (first world nations) generally hold our troops accountable.

So long as they're of sufficiently low rank, to be held accountable.

Generals and admirals' heads WILL roll if their stupidity gets aired on CNN and other major media; for example, Admiral Richard C. Macke, Commander in Chief of U.S. Forces in the Pacific in 1995, was forced to resign for comments he made regarding the rape of a 12-year-old Okinawan girl by US military servicemen (see here).

Unfortunately for third world countries with strict censorship, such public scrutiny does NOT exist to deter their men from raping, torturing, mutilating, mass murdering, and looting their way through foreign lands.