The United Nations (U.N.)-- founded on the promotion of universal human rights -- is reckoning with 25 years of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA). Countless acts of misconduct have been “committed by military and civilian personnel, employed by the U.N. and its member nations.” Scholars of the humanitarian response field have conducted evidence-based research to assert recommendations that may heal the bureaucratic U.N. system. From gender mainstreaming and preventative training to improved reporting and accountability mechanisms, the root cause of SEA at the local level fails to be confronted, and thus persists.
When asked about how to address conflict related sexual violence (CRSV) as it relates to women, peace, and security, Senior Retired U.S. Army Officer Carolyn Washington stated, “we draw people from society.” The umbrella field of peacebuilding uses relationship-building as a means to gain power and social capital. Peacekeeping is one of the many branches that functions as “a security apparatus designed to maintain the power of those that won the war.” Therefore, while victim rights advocates, vetting systems, transparency, and training are admirable steps forward, the true antidote to SEA is equity and to reimagine social capital and sustainable positive peace.
Troop-Contributing Countries (TCC) and their domestic jurisdiction over personnel are highlighted as the main obstacles to holding perpetrators of SEA accountable. Yet, how can we address military cultures, peacekeeping economies, and colonial violence that manifest on the local level if we do not explore why peacekeepers find themselves in certain contexts in the first place? At the heart of peacekeeping are political interests. According to Kovatch, many governments send their troops to be a part of peacekeeping forces because of the “status and financial benefit received from the U.N.” In fact, TCCs may join peacekeeping missions to 1) be viewed as good global citizens, 2) “enhance professional exposure in combat and non-combat situations,” 3) learn how to use new equipment, 4) promoting economic, commercial, and cultural ties with other societies, and 5) establish cultural solidarity with other countries.
Overall, researchers have concluded that TCCs, especially those part of the South Asian Trio-- India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh-- have contributed 70,000 troops over the last two generations in order to “compensate for inadequacies in terms of hard power and project their soft power potential by working with the U.N.” These truths illuminate the fact that peace and power are intertwined at the personal, local, national, and international levels. Is peacekeeping about bringing conflict resolution to vulnerable populations? Or, is it about job security for the individual civilian and military personnel so that they can retire early and provide adequate care for their families back home? Do member nations seek peace for their neighbors or do they seek a seat at the table of the U.N. Security Council in order to encourage investments in their own economy? Is the U.N. aiming to enforce global peace and security or is it meant to maintain the post-Cold War world order?
The permanent members of the U.N. (China, France, Russia, U.K., and the U.S.) dictate where peace missions occur, impose international sanctions, and authorize military action. Also, permanent members are mainly Western, wealthy countries that share blame in instigating conflict in the countries they attest to be assisting. The Associate Expert position created in 2014 as a partnership between the U.S. and the U.N. embodies this tension. The main objective is to “recruit American citizens to work for the UN Secretariat on projects that promote international peace and security,” strengthen tracking and reporting mechanisms for SEA, and support awareness-raising campaigns. The U.S. is the sole funder of the position and uses “pariah funds which are monies withheld from international organizations supporting states the U.S. does not support.” Correlation does not equal causation, but it can be inferred that a confounding variable to this endemic is power and influence. Skeptics may argue that the U.N. should not be held liable for human rights violations committed on the ground. I assert that a governing body such as the U.N., its funders, and partners should all be called to repair the political economy and create space for developing nations to express and integrate their own approach to international law.
Positive Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the opportunity to plant the seed that grows transformative relationships and nurtures social systems that serve the needs of the whole population. As practitioners continue to search for solutions to SEA within the U.N. system, let us not shift blame to TCCs or find contentment with preventative training courses. Instead, let us look towards a history of inequity and power imbalance, as well as a yearning for prosperity that everyone within the global community is entitled to.
__________________________________________________________________________________
You can also read this op-ed and many others related to war and peace on the Brandeis Women, Peace, and Security blog.
Commentaires