By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/unpol1lubbers030810.html
UNITED NATIONS, March 8 -- While the UN speaks of women's rights, it often does not promote them, especially from abuse by the UN's own personnel and peacekeepers. On March 8 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the press, "today is International Women's Day....or that reason, I am pleased to announce that Ms. Ann-Marie Orler will be the new Police Adviser for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations."
Inner City Press asked Ms. Orler for her position on the UN's policy in cases of sexual abuse or exploitation by UN Police and Peacekeepers of only sending the perpetrator back to their country, which is free to not prosecute.
Ms. Orler began by acknowledging "there is an immunity for peacekeepers," adding confusingly that "if they've done something without the mandate." She then said without equivocation, "If it's serious, they will be charged for it." Video here, from Minute 12:22.
Inner City Press asked, isn't it true that the UN only repatriates, and cannot assure prosecution, that "they will be charged"? Ms. Orler admitted, "the country has to follow up... if the country neglects it, it is more difficult." Video here, from Minute 14:37.
So, it is not true to say of sexually abusing UN personnel that "they will be charged."
The lack of clarity comes from the top. On Monday Mr. Ban was asked
"we recently had this case of sexual harassment by a UN employee – [Cynthia] Brzak I think is her name – who was dismissed because your predecessor had not lifted the diplomatic immunity of the man in question. Is that not a policy you think you should tackle, to really put some teeth into your commitment to women's rights, lifting this policy of diplomatic immunity in the case where UN officials are accused of sexual harassment?"
Ban's response left many in the press corps, and those who heard it, shaking their heads:
SG Ban: I think that, as far as the United Nations is concerned, we have taken right and correct measures in that case. Now it is in the hands of the judiciary process. I have taken note of the decision of the US court here, not allowing for her to pursue this case by reason of immunity and privileges. That is the court's decision. We had taken all necessary administrative and legal measures at that time, when it had happened. But it will continue to be the firm policy and position of the United Nations.
So -- is is the firm policy and position of the UN to assert immunity when one of its officials is charged with sexual harassment? Ironically, when UN system staffer Nicolas Baroncini, having been pepper sprayed after his job was given to the daughter of UN Congo boss Alan Doss, bit a security officer, he had no immunity, and faces a continuing trial.
But when a high UN system official is charged with sexual harassment, the UN aserts immunity all the way. Firm policy, that... Watch this site.And see, www.innercitypress.com/unpol1lubbers030810.html
