U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–299 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 114–777 

DO NO HARM: ENDING SEXUAL ABUSE 

IN UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 13, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.govinfo.gov 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

BOB CORKER, Tennessee, Chairman

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

DAVID PERDUE, Georgia 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TODD WOMACK, Staff Director

JESSICA LEWIS, Democratic Staff Director

JOHN DUTTON, Chief Clerk

(II)


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee .................................................. 1 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from Maryland ..................................... 2 

Coleman, Amb. Isobel, U.S. Representative to the United Nations for U.N. 

Management and Reform, New York, NY .......................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Jacobson, Amb. Tracey, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 

International Organization Affairs, Washington, DC ....................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Rothstein, Major General Michael, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Plans, 

Programs, and Operations, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC ................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Miranda Brown, Former Chief of Africa I Section, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland .................... 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Peter Yeo, President, Better World Campaign, and Vice President for Public 

Policy and Advocacy, United Nations Foundation, Washington, DC ............... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to Questions for the Record Submitted to Ambassador Coleman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Jocobson, and Deputy Assistant Secretary Rothstein by Senator Corker and Senator Boxer ................................... 55 

Responses to Questions for the Record Submitted to Peter Yeo, President, 

Better World Campaign, and Vice President for Public Policy and Advocacy, 

United Nations Foundation, by Senator Corker ................................................ 57 

(III)


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
(1) 

DO NO HARM: ENDING SEXUAL ABUSE IN 

UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING 

Wednesday, APRIL 13, 2016 

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:16 p.m., in Room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bob Corker, chairman of the committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Corker [presiding], Flake, Gardner, Isakson, 

Cardin, Shaheen, Coons, Murphy, Kaine, and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

The CHAIRMAN. The Foreign Relations Committee will come to 

order. 

I want to thank both of our panels for being here and for your 

service. As a courtesy, and I guess as protocol, the way these hearings go is we have government witnesses typically first and then 

we have other outside witnesses second. 

Today, not to show any disrespect in any way to those panelists 

who are going first, I wish the second panel was going first, so that 

you could hear the testimony, especially because of its nature. 

My staff generally prepares comments for me to make on the 

front end, and I generally, with a couple of alterations, stick to 

them. Today, I want to be very brief and just say that, look, we understand the importance of U.N. peacekeeping missions. We thank 

you for being here to tell us a little bit about some of the progress 

that may being made. 

But I think all of us understand the terrible, horrible things that 

U.N. peacekeepers are doing to the people they are supposed to be 

protecting. The sexual abuse, what they are rendering to the populations that are in this helpless situation, is beyond belief. 

And I think all of us, on both sides of the aisle, get very frustrated with the process focus that takes place at the U.N., but the 

lack of results that occur. 

And again, I understand you guys are working hard. You are 

working within an environment that I find less than satisfying on 

every level, whether it is at the Security Council and keeping 

agreements intact, or whether it is this kind of thing. 

Let me just make a statement. Based on what I know, and 

maybe I do not know everything I should, if I knew right now that 

a U.N. peacekeeping mission was going to go into North Chattanooga today, which is where my wife is, I would be on the first 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
2 

plane out of here to go home and protect her from the U.N. peacekeepers, especially if they came from certain countries. 

I am just telling you, so here I am as chairman of the Foreign 

Relations Committee, and if I knew that the U.N. was sending 

peacekeepers into my neighborhood, I would leave here immediately. I would drop what I was doing. I would catch the next 

flight home. And I would go home and try to protect my family 

from the abuse that they put forth on the very people that they try 

to protect. 

And that is in North Chattanooga. You think about it in some 

of these isolated places where people are held up in camps, where 

young girls are subjected—and young boys are subjected to this 

sexual violence by people that we are paying, the United States of 

America is paying. We are the largest contributor, and this is taking place. 

So look, I know you are here today to share with us some of the 

progress that is being made. This is not you doing this. I got it. 

This is not directed at you. 

But I can just tell you, I am disgusted—disgusted—by the reports, by the actions of U.N. peacekeepers that U.S. taxpayers are 

paying for. 

And I hope that somehow, out of this hearing and other hearings 

and other actions, that somehow we will figure out a way to reel 

this in. 

Again, if I knew it was happening, if I knew they were going to 

Chattanooga, I would leave here immediately to protect my family. 

So with that being said, I look forward to this hearing. I want 

to thank our ranking member for his desire and cooperation in having this. 

I thank you for your service to our country, but I hope, out of 

that service, we, as a Nation, will figure out some way of ensuring 

that the very people that are sent to protect people are not doing 

the dastardly, terrible things that they are doing to populations 

that are very vulnerable. 

Again, thank you, and I will turn it over to our ranking member. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your passion 

on this issue. 

It is not the first time we have dealt with problems such as this. 

This committee has taken, I think, the right position on trafficking 

in persons, where the United States’ leadership has been instrumental in changing attitude of so many places in the world, where 

young people were trafficked for sex or for labor abuses. And this 

committee came in very strong on oversight to make sure that the 

integrity of what we do in evaluating countries’ progress on trafficking is not compromised by politics. 

And when you look at the United Nations, we will not tolerate 

the United Nations, under the auspices of the United Nations, perpetrating these types of violence against young people, against anyone. So I agree with you completely. 

I first want to underscore the importance of the U.N. peacekeeping missions—120,000 military and police personnel, an overVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
3 

whelming number performing their professional responsibilities in 

the appropriate way with commitment and honor, protecting vulnerable citizens from the South Sudan to the Golan Heights, 16 

missions around the world, four continents. 

Ambassador Power pointed out that the United States not only 

has a direct security interest in the U.N. peacekeeping missions, 

and we contribute, as the chairman pointed out, to these missions 

at a greater percentage than any other country in the world, but 

it is value for the United States. I think Ambassador Power pointed out it is like an eight-to-one savings to U.S. taxpayers to be able 

to use the international United Nations peacekeepers rather than 

the United States having to fulfill that function. 

So, there is certainly a very important benefit to the U.N. peacekeeping missions and the overwhelming majority of those who are 

doing the work are doing it properly. But the sexual abuse perpetrated by U.N. peacekeepers must end—must end. 

Those who are perpetrators need to be held accountable. There 

can be no exception to that. Zero tolerance. 

And I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, you are right to be outraged, 

because we are talking about young children who are very vulnerable, who are poor, who have been subject to the most difficult lifestyles, being enticed by food or money to do horrible things under 

the United Nations. 

That cannot continue. So there has to be accountability here. 

The thing that gets Chairman Corker and me so concerned are 

the reports that, at least initially within the United Nations, the 

response was fragmented and bureaucratic, that it was not treated 

with the seriousness that it should have been treated. That is hard 

for us understand, the entity that is supposed to bring world peace 

and stability condoning, through their inactions, those types of activities. 

So, the United Nations passed a U.N. Security Council resolution 

last March. I have read it. It looks like an appropriate response. 

Will it be enforced? Will we be prepared, in fact, to repatriate all 

of the uniformed personnel from countries that are not doing what 

they need to do in training their personnel before they are in theater to deal with sexual abuse issues, holding those who violate accountable, including prison time. If not, they should not be part of 

the U.N. peacekeeping mission. 

Are we prepared to implement to that? And I say that because, 

Mr. Chairman, there are shortages of personnel. There are more 

countries that are now participating in U.N. peacekeeping missions, including those from developing countries, that may not have 

the same access to training. So, will the United Nations compromise the safety of young people in order to meet the numbers 

in the peacekeeping mission? 

If they do, the chairman and I are going to do everything we can 

to make sure they do not have the resources to do that. We are not 

going to support that type of activity. 

So there can be zero tolerance. 

And I really do look forward to the discussion we are going to 

have with our two panels today. And I do know that the people 

that are in front of us are working every day to make sure that 

the United States leadership makes it clear that we will not allow, 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
4 

or tolerate, that type of conduct, and we will demand that, particularly under the U.N. banner, that there be total accountability and 

no tolerance for this type of activity. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I very much appreciate your service here, too, very much. 

Our first witness is the Honorable Ambassador Isobel Coleman, 

U.S. Representative to the United States for U.N. Management and 

Reform. Our second witness today is the Honorable Tracey Ann 

Jacobson, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of 

International Organization Affairs. Our third witness is Major 

General Michael D. Rothstein. 

Did I pronounce that correctly? 

General ROTHSTEIN. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Deputy Assistant Secretary for State for Plans, 

Programs, and Operations, State Department, Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs. 

Again, we thank you all for your service to our country. 

I think all of you know that, without objection, your written testimony will be entered into the record, if you could summarize in 

about 5 minutes. 

And I would say that I know you all are very busy. To the extent 

you could hear the testimony of the second panel, it might be beneficial to you. 

But we thank you for yours here now, and if you could just start 

in the order that I introduced you, I would appreciate it. 

Again, thank you for taking the time to be with us today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ISOBEL COLEMAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS FOR U.N. MANAGEMENT AND 

REFORM, U.S. MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS, NEW 

YORK, NEW YORK 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Cardin and other distinguished members of the panel, for 

inviting me here to testify today on this urgent and shameful issue 

of sexual abuse and exploitation by U.N. peacekeepers. 

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to travel with Ambassador Power to the Central African Republic to witness the peaceful transfer of power to the newly elected President of that country. 

And in many ways, the trip underscored both the best and the very 

worst of U.N. peacekeeping. 

The presence of U.N. peacekeepers has been critical to 

staunching the ethnic violence in that country, violence that has 

led to the deaths of thousands of people and displaced hundreds of 

thousands of people. But as we all know, some MINUSCA troops 

have also been implicated in allegations of horrific sexual abuse, 

preying on the very people that they were sent to protect. 

During my time in CAR, Ambassador Power and I had the opportunity to travel to Bambari and meet with the families of victims. 

And their descriptions of the violence that their loved ones have 

suffered at the hands of U.N. peacekeepers were really powerful 

personal accounts that, for me, cut through the handwringing, 

frankly, the excuses for why this scourge has been allowed to persist for just too long. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
5 

Sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers is not a new 

problem. It has plagued missions from Bosnia to Haiti to the 

Democratic Republic of Congo to the Central African Republic. 

Let me read you just a short passage from an internal U.N. report documenting sexual abuse among peacekeepers. I am quoting, 

‘‘Some girls talked of rape disguised as prostitution, in which they 

said they were raped and given money or food afterward to give the 

rape the appearance of a consensual transaction.’’ These words, I 

am sorry to say, come from the Zeid report in 2005. 

We know from the scope of current allegations now, more than 

a decade later, these very same offenses are still occurring. And despite years of U.N. leaders insisting on, quote, ‘‘zero tolerance,’’ a 

culture of impunity has been allowed to fester. 

When Ambassador Power asked me last year to lead our mission’s efforts to establish a new paradigm for really tackling this 

scourge, it was clear that an unacceptable lack of transparency and 

accountability were at the heart of the issue. 

Yes, the U.N. published an annual report, tallying the numbers 

and types of sexual abuses by mission, by peacekeepers. But under 

pressure from the troop-contributing countries themselves, it withheld the nationality of the alleged perpetrators. And that made it 

difficult for member states to take collective action on tracking the 

status of investigations and the outcome of disciplinary action to 

hold perpetrators to account. 

In short, without transparency, real accountability was at best— 

at best—inconsistent. 

And this, finally, is changing. 

And, Senator, I share your outrage on this. To look back over so 

many years of words, of rhetoric, that has not resulted in true accountability is simply unacceptable. 

Last year, USUN led negotiations in the General Assembly for 

what I view as a breakthrough, finally, on transparency. We gained 

consensus among member states to support the Secretary General 

in his intent to name countries in his annual report, those countries whose troops have allegations against them, a long overdue 

step. 

As of early March this year, the U.N. is now reporting on its Web 

site. In real-time, it is posting credible allegations, along with the 

nationality of the alleged perpetrators. And with this information, 

we are pursuing a comprehensive approach to track individual 

cases and follow up with the appropriate authorities. 

In March, USUN brought the issue of sexual abuse, as you know, 

to the Security Council with Resolution 2272, another significant 

step forward for accountability. The resolution endorses the Secretary General’s decision to repatriate peacekeeping units that 

have demonstrated a pattern of abuse, which is a clear indication 

of insufficient command-and-control. And the Secretary General is 

empowered to repatriate all the troops from a mission from a particular troop- or police-contributing country, if it is not taking appropriate steps to investigate allegations against its personnel or 

has not held them accountable. 

Our goal is to see Resolution 2272 implemented fully as a means 

of powerful prevention by ending once and for all the culture of impunity that has persisted for too long. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
6 

The other part of the strategy is to increase the overall supply 

of peacekeepers such that when military units or contingents are 

repatriated, there are others that are well-trained and vetted, able 

to deploy quickly to take their place. 

The U.N. has come a long way in responding to this scourge of 

sexual abuse. With strong support from the United States, it has 

built up its investigative capabilities, increased training and vetting of troops, implemented greater community outreach to increase awareness about sexual abuse, instituted penalties for offenders, and is improving victims’ assistance. 

But clearly, given the shocking scale and gravity of the sexual 

abuse incidents being reported from the Central African Republic 

and other missions, these actions by themselves are not sufficient 

to address the crisis. 

The U.N.’s recent commitments to greater transparency and accountability must, absolutely must, result in a long overdue sea 

change that ends impunity. 

Our work is not done. We continue to make it our highest priority, both in New York and bilaterally, to see perpetrators held to 

account and sorely lacking integrity restored to peacekeeping. 

Thank you. 

[Ambassador Coleman’s prepared statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR ISOBEL COLEMAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO

THE UNITED NATIONS FOR U.N. MANAGEMENT AND REFORM, NEW YORK, NY 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin and distinguished members 

of the Committee for inviting me to testify today on the urgent, and shameful, issue 

of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. Peacekeepers. 

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to travel with Ambassador Power to the 

Central African Republic to witness the peaceful handover of power to the country’s 

newly-elected leader, President Touadera. In many ways, the trip underscored both 

the best, and the very worst, of United Nations peacekeeping operations. The presence of U.N. peacekeepers has been crucial in stanching the ethnic violence that has 

wracked the Central African Republic, which has resulted in thousands of deaths 

and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. Today, the U.N.’s peacekeeping mission, MINUSCA, is not only keeping a fragile peace, but working with 

the new government to extend state authority, prepare for the demobilization and 

disarmament of militias, and build local capacity so that CAR can begin the long 

process of standing on its own feet. 

Yet as we all know, some MINUSCA troops have also been implicated in allegations of horrific sexual abuses, preying on the very people they have been sent to 

protect. During my time in CAR, Ambassador Power and I traveled to Bambari and 

visited with the families of some of the victims of that abuse. Their descriptions of 

the violence their loved ones have experienced at the hands of peacekeepers were 

powerful personal accounts that, for me, cut through all the statistics, the 

handwringing and frankly, the excuses about why this scourge has continued to 

happen. On that very same day, a host of additional allegations from the 2013— 

2015 time period came to light of abuses in Kemo prefecture—allegations that can 

only be described as gut-wrenching and sickening. 

Sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers is not a new problem. It has 

plagued missions from Bosnia to Haiti, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to 

the Central African Republic. Let me read to you just one passage from an internal 

U.N. report documenting sexual abuse among peacekeepers: 

Sexual exploitation and abuse mostly involves the exchange of sex for 

money (on average $1–$3 per encounter), or for food (the report notes as 

little as two eggs from a soldier’s rations) . . . Some young girls . . . talked 

of ‘‘rape disguised as prostitution,’’ in which they said they were raped and 

given money or food afterwards to give the rape the appearance of a consensual transaction. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
7 

These words, I’m sorry to say, are from the Zeid Report, published by the U.N. 

in 2005. We know from the scope of current allegations that now, more than a decade later, these very same offenses are still occurring. Despite years of U.N. leaders 

insisting on ‘‘zero tolerance,’’ a culture of impunity has been allowed to fester. 

When Ambassador Power asked me last year to lead our mission’s efforts in helping to establish a new paradigm for tackling this scourge, it was clear that an unacceptable lack of transparency and accountability were at the heart of the problem. 

Yes, the U.N. published an annual report tallying the numbers and types of SEA 

incidents by peacekeeping mission, but under pressure from the troop contributing 

countries themselves, it withheld the nationality of alleged perpetrators. That made 

it difficult for Member States to take collective action on tracking the status of investigations and the outcome of disciplinary action or other actions to hold perpetrators to account, and assessing the appropriateness of steps taken by the U.N. to address the issue. In short, without transparency, real accountability was at best, inconsistent. But that, finally, is changing. 

Last year, USUN led negotiations in the General Assembly for a breakthrough on 

transparency, gaining consensus among Member States to support the Secretary 

General in his intent to name countries in his annual SEA report—a long-overdue 

step. As of March, the U.N. now posts credible allegations on its website, along with 

the nationality of the alleged perpetrators. With this information, we are pursuing 

a comprehensive approach as outlined earlier by PDAS Jacobson, to track individual 

cases and follow up with the appropriate authorities, including through engagement 

in capitals, to determine the status of investigations and encourage effective judicial 

proceedings where appropriate. This is part of our broader interagency effort to improve peacekeeping performance and accountability per the Presidential Policy 

Memorandum on U.S. Support to U.N. Peace Operations. 

In March, in an effort to broaden responsibility within the U.N., USUN brought 

the issue of SEA to the Security Council, which adopted U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2272—another significant step forward for accountability. The resolution endorses the Secretary General’s decision to repatriate peacekeeping units 

that have demonstrated a pattern of abuse—which is a clear indication of insufficient command and control. Going further, UNSCR 2272 empowers the Secretary 

General to repatriate all troops from a mission from a particular TCC or PCC whose 

personnel are the subject of an allegation if that TCC or PCC is not taking appropriate steps to investigate SEA allegations against its personnel or, when warranted, has not held the perpetrators accountable or has not informed the Secretary 

General of the progress of its investigations or of other actions taken. In such situations, it requests the Secretary-General to seek replacement of those troops or police 

with personnel from another contributing country. 

Our goal is to see UNSCR 2272 implemented fully as a means of powerful prevention by ending once and for all the culture of impunity for SEA in peacekeeping that 

has persisted for too long. Already, we are seeing positive signs of change, with the 

U.N. having repatriated military units from MINUSCA for SEA. It has alerted the 

relevant contributing countries that the U.N. is conducting its review of these most 

recent additional allegations against U.N. peacekeepers in CAR to repatriate peacekeepers if there is a pattern of abuse. 

The other part of this strategy, as also noted earlier, is to increase the overall 

supply of peacekeepers such that when military units or contingents are repatriated, 

others that are well trained and vetted are available to deploy quickly to take their 

place. President Obama’s Peacekeeping Summit at the U.N. last September resulted 

in new pledges to peacekeeping of over 40,000 military and police personnel—an increase in supply that over time will allow the U.N. to more aggressively address a 

broad range of performance and peacekeeping issues, in addition to SEA. 

The U.N. has come a long way in recent years in responding to the scourge of 

SEA, with strong support from the United States. It has built up its investigative 

capabilities, increased training and vetting of troops, implemented greater community outreach to increase awareness about SEA and reporting mechanisms, instituted penalties for offenders, and is improving victim’s assistance. Clearly, given the 

shocking scale and gravity of the SEA incidents being reported from CAR and other 

missions, these actions are necessary but by themselves are not sufficient to address 

the crisis. The U.N.’s recent commitments to greater transparency and accountability must result in a long-overdue sea change that ends impunity. Our work is 

not done. We continue to make it our highest priority both in New York at the U.N. 

and bilaterally to see perpetrators held to account and sorely lacking integrity restored to peacekeeping. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
8 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRACEY ANN JACOBSON, PRINCIPAL 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am honored to be here with you today to talk about this 

horrific issue that demands urgent, meaningful, and sustained effort. 

Sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers is a cancer 

that demands the most comprehensive treatment possible. And our 

well-justified collective outrage is only useful if it is paired with action. 

I begin by noting that the United States has long been a vocal 

advocate for increased transparency and accountability as it relates 

to allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers. We are pleased that this push for transparency is finally 

starting to find its first traction. 

And while it is clear, as you note, that the actions taken so far 

by the U.N. and member states have fallen far short of the mark, 

certain recent actions taken by the Secretary General reflect a new 

seriousness and create important new avenues for member state 

engagement. 

Some of these steps include improved reporting systems for victims and their communities, the creation of immediate response 

teams to collect and secure evidence for use in investigations, withholding of payments to troop- and police-contributing missions for 

their staff that have been sent home under allegations of misconduct, and the creation of task forces in all peacekeeping operations on sexual exploitation and abuse. 

And I will also note that, in February, the Secretary General 

took the unprecedented step of sending home an entire contingent 

from the Democratic Republic of Congo who had been working in 

Central African Republic based on credible allegations of exploitation and abuse. This is the first time that the Secretary General 

has taken such a step. It sets an important precedent and we believe it sends an important signal to troop- and police-contributing 

countries. 

We particularly welcome the Secretary General’s action to identify the nationalities of those uniformed personnel who are accused 

of committing sexual exploitation and abuse, including this information online in near real-time. 

Troop- and police-contributing countries have the ultimate responsibility for the discipline of their personnel. And by providing 

this information publicly, the U.N. can motivate these countries to 

do much better. 

It also allows member states to track performance, to recognize 

serious patterns of abuse, and to use our diplomatic weight to urge 

the U.N. to repatriate units that have a systemic pattern of misconduct, and to ban countries from peacekeeping where appropriate. 

This new level of information has also allowed us to direct our 

bilateral engagement where it is most needed. Last month, we 

launched an effort to reach out to every country on the U.N.’s list 

in the Secretary General’s report at senior levels to accomplish 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
9 

three goals: first, to make sure that they were aware of the report 

and the allegations concerning their troops; second, to demand 

credible action in terms of investigation and holding those responsible to account, including through prosecution when appropriate 

where crimes have been committed; and thirdly, to identify those 

areas where the United States might provide capacity-building assistance to help these countries better investigate and prosecute 

crimes involving sexual exploitation and abuse. 

I would also note that the Secretary General’s report included allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse against civilian personnel of the U.N. and different agencies. Based on that information, we are following up directly with those agencies to make sure 

that they take all necessary action. 

Mr. Chairman, any instance of sexual exploitation and abuse 

does very real damage to the credibility of the institution of peacekeeping, a tool that has never been more important for global peace 

and security, and one on which the United States relies to stabilize 

conflict situations that could otherwise spiral out of control. 

Last year, the President hosted the Leaders’ Summit on Peacekeeping and issued a new presidential memorandum reaffirming 

our strong support for U.N. peace operations and directing new efforts to strengthen and modernize these operations. These efforts 

are well-timed to bolster our actions on sexual exploitation and 

abuse. 

For example, new commitments in the President’s summit last 

year included 40,000 troops and police, and this should send a message to troop- and police-contributing countries that peace operations are no longer a sellers’ market. 

This increased capability should allow the U.N. to prioritize better performing troops in its deployments and also give it the flexibility to replace units potentially withdrawn for misconduct. 

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues with me today are well-placed to 

speak specifically to issues of the reforms we have pursued at the 

U.N. and the training that we provide and capacity that we provide 

to peacekeeping troops in the field. 

I will conclude by saying that, by their very mandate, the vast 

majority of U.N. peacekeepers are serving under a mandate to protect civilians who are under threat of physical violence. Exploiting 

or abusing these same vulnerable people is appalling and an unconscionable breach of trust. And we greatly appreciate the attention this committee is bringing to the issue and share your outrage 

at what has been allowed to occur. 

[Ambassador Jacobson’s prepared statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR TRACEY JACOBSON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on an issue that demands urgent, meaningful, and sustained action. Sexual 

exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers is a cancer that demands the most 

comprehensive treatment possible, and while our collective outrage is well justified, 

that outrage is only useful if it is paired with action. 

As you know well, in early March U.N. Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon released 

his annual report on SEA detailing a shocking number of allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. civilian and uniformed personnel in 2015 alone. While 

we welcome the Secretary-General’s efforts to improve transparency on these matters, the report also illuminates an important truth—that the steps the U.N. and 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
10 

1 Burundi, Cameroon, Congo-Brazzaville, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Morocco, 

Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Benin, South Africa, Tanzania, Slovakia, Niger, Moldova, Togo, Canada, 

Rwanda, Madagascar, Senegal, Ghana, and Germany. 

its member states were taking to address this crisis were falling far short of the 

need. 

However, we believe certain recent actions taken by the U.N. not only reflect a 

new seriousness, but also create important new avenues for member state engagement. 

For example, we’re watching closely the Secretary-General’s efforts aimed at 

strengthening the U.N. system’s capacity to respond. These include steps to leverage 

the international presence in any post-conflict environment, improve reporting systems for victims and communities, the creation of immediate response teams to 

gather and preserve evidence for use in investigations, suspending reimbursement 

to troop- and police- contributing countries for uniformed personnel who are sent 

home for alleged misconduct, and the establishment of sexual exploitation and abuse 

taskforces in U.N. peace operations. 

I will also note that in February the Secretary-General took the groundbreaking 

action of repatriating an entire contingent of peacekeepers from the Democratic Republic of Congo from the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Central African Republic 

largely due to credible allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse. This contingent 

was replaced by troops from another country. Although this was the first time the 

Secretary-General had taken such a step, it sets an important precedent and we believe it sends a strong message to other troop and police contributing countries. 

And we particularly welcome the Secretary-General’s action to begin identifying 

the nationality of military and police personnel alleged to have committed sexual 

exploitation and abuse as well as judicial or administrative actions taken by their 

governments. 

This is an important step. Troop and police contributing countries are responsible 

for the discipline of their personnel. Public identification can motivate countries unwilling to take appropriate steps to prevent and respond to SEA to change the way 

they do business. 

Transparency can also help to identify which countries may require further capacity building, including training to prevent SEA, to investigate and prosecute criminal SEA in their national military and civilian justice systems, and general 

professionalization. As importantly, the identification of countries will also allow 

Member States to identify serious patterns of misconduct, so that we can use our 

diplomatic muscle to urge the U.N. to repatriate units and contingents and when 

necessary suspend these countries from contributing uniformed personnel until they 

can demonstrate they have taken adequate corrective actions. 

According to the Secretary General’s annual report released in March, there were 

69 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse in U.N. peacekeeping operations and 

special political missions from 211 countries in 2015. Since then, there have been 

additional reported instances in 2015 and 2016—we know this because in another 

welcome development, the U.N. has started posting allegations in near-real time on 

their website. 

Although the State Department and our mission to the U.N. in New York have 

a long track record of using diplomatic engagement to jolt the U.N. and troop and 

police contributing countries into action on this issue, this new level of information 

has allowed the United States to focus our efforts where most needed. Last month 

we launched an effort to approach all the countries on the U.N.’s list at senior government levels to accomplish three goals: 

First, to ensure their full awareness of the report and allegations. Second, to seek 

their firm commitment to investigate credibly and hold those found responsible to 

account, including through prosecution where appropriate when crimes have been 

committed. And third, to discuss potential areas of cooperation where the United 

States might support improved capacity to investigate and prosecute crimes involving SEA. 

Our ongoing effort includes asking other countries to be similarly engaged with 

troop and police contributing countries. 

I will also note that the Secretary-General’s report detailed allegations of sexual 

exploitation and abuse by civilian personnel serving in other U.N. entities. Based 

on that reporting, we have approached relevant U.N. agencies to ensure they are 

taking needed action. 

Mr. Chairman, any instance of sexual exploitation and abuse does very real damage to the credibility of the institution of peacekeeping—a tool that has never been 

more important to global peace and security, and upon which the U.S. relies to stabilize conflicts that might otherwise spiral out of control. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
11 

It is our goal to bring these practices to a definitive end in order to ensure U.N. 

peacekeeping remains an available, effective tool—and one that operates to the 

highest standards of professionalism, capacity, and conduct. 

It is exactly that goal that prompted the President to host the Leaders’ Summit 

on Peacekeeping at last year’s U.N. General Assembly and to issue a new Presidential Memorandum reaffirming our strong support for U.N. peace operations and 

directing new actions to strengthen and modernize these operations. 

These efforts are well-timed to bolster action on sexual exploitation and abuse. 

For example, the Leaders’ Summit resulted in commitments from more than fifty 

countries of nearly 150 new military and police contributions to U.N. peacekeeping, 

amounting to more than 40,000 troops and police. 

We are pushing pledging countries to realize these new commitments, which will 

send a message to other troop and police contributing countries that this is no 

longer a seller’s market. New capacities should allow the U.N. to prioritize better 

performing troops and police for deployment if a new mission is stood-up or if new 

gaps arise in existing missions, and they provide the U.N. with flexibility to replace 

contingents potentially withdrawn for misconduct. 

The Presidential Policy Memorandum has changed the way the interagency works 

on peacekeeping. In the six months since it has been issued, the State Department 

and the Department of Defense have begun to work more closely and collaboratively 

on U.N. peacekeeping. 

Although the U.S. Mission to the U.N. takes the lead on diplomacy and outreach 

in New York, the interagency contributes to their strategies and we send interagency delegations to New York to deliver clear messages about the actions that 

should be taken by the Secretariat and by the Permanent Missions to prevent and 

respond to SEA. Our colleagues in the bureaus for African Affairs, Political-Military 

Affairs, and International Narcotic and Law Enforcement work in partnership with 

the Department of Defense (DoD) to take the lead on strengthening U.S. peacekeeping capacity-building programs, but we all contribute to important aspects of 

their planning. 

At State, we continue to do targeted outreach through posts and in multilateral 

dialogues, often with DoD standing alongside, to deliver tough messages and requests on performance and SEA. We are leveraging all of our tools, and by doing 

it jointly we have greater impact. The current nature and intensity of interagency 

collaboration on U.N. peacekeeping reform is unprecedented and we will continue 

to focus our efforts to improve peacekeeper performance, including ending the current scourge of SEA. 

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues with me today from the U.S. Mission to the U.N. 

and from the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs are well-placed to flesh out their 

efforts to promote oversight and reform, training, capacity-building, etc. 

I will conclude by noting that by their very mandates, the vast majority of U.N. 

peace operations are intended to protect civilians under threat of physical violence. 

Exploiting or abusing these same vulnerable people is appalling and an inexcusable 

breach of trust, and we greatly appreciate this Committee’s attention to the issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. General? 

STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL D. ROTHSTEIN, 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PLANS, PROGRAMS, 

AND OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF POLITICAL–MILITARY AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

General ROTHSTEIN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Cardin, members of the committee. 

Thank you for letting me speak today. And I, too, like my colleagues, am very deeply troubled by what brings us here today and 

the things we have to discuss about these events and incidents. 

Among my duties at the State Department, I am responsible for 

providing executive leadership for the Global Peace Operations Initiative. I will take just a moment to give you a little bit of background on that, and then I will discuss its intersection with preventing sexual exploitation and abuse. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
12 

GPOI, the Global Peace Operations Initiative, is our flagship security assistance program that focuses on building capacity for 

other countries to deploy peacekeepers to support United Nations 

or other regional missions. For the most part, it is a training and 

equipping kind of admission, although we also focus on building 

their self-sufficiency to do training for themselves. And importantly, of note, one of our key program objectives is to promote the 

role of women and to promote better gender integration into their 

operations. 

GPOI has been very successful in helping other countries step up 

to their responsibilities for international security. It also allows us, 

and our own U.S. forces, to focus our military on other priorities 

besides peacekeeping. 

To date, the program has facilitated the deployment of more than 

200,000 personnel to 29 different operations around the world. 

And today, GPOI partners, although they only comprise 40 percent of the troop-contributing countries, punch well above their 

weight class by providing more than 70 percent of the troops that 

are forming those missions. 

Through GPOI and through our diplomatic engagement, as my 

colleague mentioned earlier, we are working to expand the base of 

the number of countries and the number of troops that are available to the U.N. to support these missions. And I would echo what 

my colleague said, that we think this will help by having more 

troops out there raise the standard not only for mission performance but also for conduct and discipline. 

Now let me be clear for the record. I think I share the sentiment 

of everyone in here that each and every instance of sexual exploitation and abuse by any peacekeeper is absolutely unacceptable, 

not only for the harm it causes directly, but it also fundamentally 

undermines the mission and legitimacy of what it is trying to 

occur. 

Now GPOI is very deliberately structured to try to proactively 

address sexual exploitation and abuse. In program execution, we 

direct that all appropriate individual and unit training has elements of academics and things that go against sexual exploitation 

and abuse built into their training. 

We start in the classroom. We move on to scenario- based training. And then we move on in exercise-related training at both the 

individual unit and leader level. 

We pay particular attention to training leaders, because we are 

keenly aware of the very important role that leadership plays and 

how significant a positive impact of effective leadership can have 

downrange once they are in mission. 

And then GPOI also works to promote the role of women and to 

promote gender integration. We specifically seek out women as 

trainers, because we understand the positive impact that can have. 

And over the past 5 years, the 50 active countries that are GPOI 

partners, they have nearly doubled the number of women that they 

deploy in mission for U.N. peacekeeping. And to give you a point 

of contrast, the 71 countries that are not GPOI partners that participate in peacekeeping, they have actually had a decrease of 16 

percent of the number of women that are being deployed. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
13 

So I am very comfortable that GPOI is having a positive impact 

in this area and through that influence. 

Now while we are proud of GPOI’s efforts to address this issue, 

and I do believe we are positively shaping behavior and outcome, 

no amount of training, no better gender integration, is a panacea. 

As we know, there are far too many serious instances that still 

occur. And I, like my colleagues, am hopeful that recent U.N. policy 

changes to promote transparency will help. They have to continue 

to follow through. 

And if a GPOI partner fails to follow up on those allegations, if 

they fail to take responsible action through their jurisprudence system, then we have to be ready as a Nation to consider suspending 

our security assistance. We have to take a very deliberate decision 

on how we do that. 

In the end, well-trained, well-disciplined, well-equipped units, 

they are the very building blocks to effective peacekeeping. And 

while there are many GPOI success stories out there, we are also 

very well aware that the track record is not perfect by any means. 

And so, whether it is directly or indirectly, through ongoing 

training, through expanding the role of women, we remain committed for improvement overseas with the U.N., with our partner 

countries, to rid us of this scourge of sexual exploitation and abuse. 

Thank you for your time. I stand by for your questions. 

[General Rothstein’s prepared statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL ROTHSTEIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF POLITICAL-MILITARY AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cardin and members of the committee. I am U.S. Air Force Major General Michael Rothstein, here before you in 

my capacity as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Plans, Programs, and Operations in 

the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. 

Among my duties at the State Department, I am responsible for providing executive leadership and guidance for U.S. government global security assistance programs and policies, such as the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI)—which 

I look forward to discussing with you today. As an active-duty member of the armed 

services on detail to the State Department, one might say I am ‘‘living proof’’ of 

State and DoD’s commitment to coordination and collaboration. 

GPOI AS A FLAGSHIP PROGRAM FOR BUILDING GLOBAL PEACE OPERATIONS CAPACITY

Peacekeeping missions are a critical tool for promoting peace and reconciliation 

in some of the world’s most troubled countries. As Ambassador Power highlighted 

to this committee in December of last year: ‘‘Even when the United States has an 

interest in seeing conflict abate or civilians protected, that does not mean that U.S. 

forces should be doing all of the abating or the protecting.’’ 

While the U.S. cannot and should not send the U.S. military into all of the world’s 

conflict zones, we have a compelling interest in curbing violent conflicts and preventing suffering around the world, and we need international peacekeeping to 

work. GPOI serves as our flagship program for building global peace operations capacity, and is one of the key ways the United States advances its vital interest in 

strengthening peacekeeping. 

GPOI works to strengthen international capacity and capabilities to implement 

United Nations (U.N.) and regional peace operations. It builds the capacity of our 

partners and enhances their capabilities to meet the growing global demand for specially trained personnel required for peace operations. GPOI supports not only military peacekeeping activities, but also contributes to the development of formed police units (FPUs), complementing the efforts of our colleagues in the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. 

In addition to being the world’s leading financial supporter of U.N. peacekeeping, 

the United States is also the largest trainer and equipper of military and police conVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
14 

tingents deploying to peacekeeping operations in the world. Programs like GPOI 

have played a pivotal role in meeting the expanding need for well-trained, adequately equipped peacekeepers capable of responding to evolving mission requirements. To date, the program has facilitated the deployment of more than 200,000 

personnel to 29 peace operations around the world. Moreover, assistance and engagement through GPOI have directly advanced the will and ability of partner countries to deploy key enabling capabilities essential to mission success, such as aviation, engineering, or medical units, as well as to deploy more basic units to higher 

risk missions. GPOI is further working to expand the base of troop and police contributors and help create a surplus of peacekeeping forces. Importantly, this will 

allow the international community to be more selective in choosing which forces will 

deploy for which missions and help both raise and enforce standards. 

HOW GPOI WORKS DIRECTLY TO PREVENT SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE (SEA)

Let me be clear: each and every instance of sexual exploitation and abuse by 

members of any peacekeeping force undermines the force’s mission and legitimacy. 

Given the strategic importance of multilateral peace operations to U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives, we strongly believe contributing countries must 

take steps to ensure that personnel assigned to peacekeeping missions are properly 

trained, vetted, scrupulously professional in their conduct, and held to account when 

their actions fall below those standards. GPOI and our broader security assistance 

and security cooperation programs play a key part in supporting the efforts of our 

partner countries to professionalize their security forces and enforce stringent conduct and discipline standards. 

GPOI is consciously structured to proactively address these serious issues. GPOI 

training and support programs must adhere to the GPOI Strategy, which includes 

prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse in one of its seven program objectives. 

Additionally, all GPOI training must follow specific training requirements identified 

in program guidance to our implementers and trainers in the field—guidance that 

is emphasized and reemphasized throughout the year at regional and global roundtable consultations to address best practices in identifying and addressing this critical issue. 

In 2015, GPOI funded 130 training events and courses around the world. These 

programs explain the U.N.’s zero tolerance policy against sexual exploitation and 

abuse and emphasize the critical role that individuals, units and leaders play in preventing sexual exploitation and abuse. Where appropriate, GPOI-funded training incorporates instruction on human rights, conduct, and discipline, including the preventions of sexual exploitation and abuse; protection of civilians, including the prevention of sexual and gender-based violence, and child protection. 

At the individual level, such training includes examples, perceptions and definitions of sexual exploitation and abuse, in order for prospective peacekeepers to fully 

grasp its impact on individuals, the population, and the peacekeeping mission. 

These lessons outline peacekeeper standards of conduct including individual and 

leadership responsibilities for preventing, responding to and reporting sexual exploitation and abuse, as well as discussingthe consequences of sexual misconduct. This 

training is further reinforced as part of unit level trainings. 

While preventing sexual exploitation and abuse is the responsibility of every 

peacekeeper, GPOI training places particular emphasis on the critical role that unit 

leaders play in this task. For example, this topic is stressed as part of battalionlevel pre-deployment training we provide through the GPOI-funded Africa Contingency Operations and Training Assistance, or ACOTA, program, as well as the Contingent Commander courses we sponsor in Africa, the Asia-Pacific regions, and elsewhere. This training places a focus on commanders’ responsibilities to enforce conduct and discipline among their troops, including sexual exploitation and abuse and 

other forms of misconduct. 

HOW GPOI HELPS PREVENT SEA BY PROMOTING THE ROLE OF WOMEN AND

ENHANCED GENDER INTEGRATION INTO PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS

Working to include women as equal partners in preventing conflict and building 

peace in countries threatened and affected by war, violence, and insecurity can also 

help reduce instances of sexual exploitation and abuse and gender-based violence. 

This is why, in addition to direct support for this specialized training, GPOI consciously works to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse by promoting the role of 

women and influencing partner countries to increase gender integration into U.N. 

and regional peacekeeping operations, including specifically seeking out women to 

serve as trainers for foreign military or police units. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
15 

Over the past five years, the 50 active GPOI partner countries have nearly doubled the number of female military peacekeepers deployed to 2,539 and more than 

doubled the number of female FPU officers to 513. Additionally, GPOI has provided 

more than $3 million specifically for women, peace and security and related protection of civilian initiatives in support of the U.N. and partner countries across the 

globe. As a point of contrast during this same period, the 71 countries that are not 

GPOI partners actually decreased the number of deployed females from 604 to 508, 

a loss of 16%. 

GPOI also provides funding assistance for gender-specific facilities refurbishment 

to enable gender integration and more systemic training of female peacekeepers, 

such as the establishment of female barracks, latrines and showers at peacekeeping 

training centers. 

BROADER EFFORTS REQUIRED TO PREVENT AND RESPOND TO SEA

Training and gender integration initiatives, such as efforts the U.S. Government 

implements through GPOI and complementary security assistance and cooperation 

programs are foundational to sexual exploitation and abuse prevention efforts. We 

will continue to actively explore ways in which we can strengthen training and reinforce messaging on these critical issues. 

However, it is important to note that training is only a small part of a broader, 

holistic effort required to more effectively prevent sexual exploitation and abuse in 

U.N. and regional peace operations. Many factors beyond training underlie sexual 

exploitation and abuse and other conduct and discipline issues. Individual morals, 

cultural values, unit professionalism, leadership, and education among other considerations, can contribute to conditions that foster peacekeeper conduct and discipline 

problems. 

While we commit to objectively examining the effectiveness of our GPOI training 

activities, training is but one piece of the solution to this pervasive problem. We 

must also continue our work with the U.N., troop and police contributing countries, 

and other international stakeholders to examine and address issues underlying the 

prevalence of sexual exploitation and abuse in some peacekeeping missions and to 

work together to implement more effective prevention measures. 

Moreover, greater efforts must be undertaken. We must continue to push the U.N. 

for greater transparency and accountability in allegations and investigations and for 

the U.N. to clarify roles and responsibilities for conducting sexual exploitation and 

abuse investigations. Additionally we must engage diplomatically and consider security assistance to troop or police contributing countries to strengthen both their political will and their actual capacity to respond effectively to allegations. 

In some cases, troop or police contributors demonstrate the will to pursue allegations but lack the institutional capacity to conduct timely, effective investigations 

or, where appropriate, to prosecute cases through either a military or civilian justice 

system. In other cases, countries’ leaders may view sexual exploitation and abuse 

allegations less seriously than warranted and be reluctant to take appropriate action. Accordingly, we must continue to work collaboratively within the interagency 

and with the U.N., U.N. member states, including troop and police contributors, and 

other international stakeholders to develop the investigative, prosecution, and other 

mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable, as well as to pressure those countries 

reluctant to take appropriate action when necessary. If countries fail to respond appropriately, we are and must be willing to deliberately consider withholding further 

GPOI assistance. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL POLICY MEMORANDUM ON U.S. SUPPORT TO U.N. PEACE OPERATIONS

Although GPOI has long been invested in efforts to prevent sexual exploitation 

and abuse, the issuance of the Presidential Policy Memorandum on U.S. Support to 

U.N. Peace Operations in September 2015 has broadened and strengthened our efforts. We are working closely with the International Organizations Bureau, INL and 

others at the State Department, the U.S. Mission to the U.N., and the Department 

of Defense to implement the policy. Together, we are taking steps to address a broad 

range of peacekeeping performance and accountability issues, with particular attention to sexual exploitation and abuse by coordinating and complementing how we 

use our programming and influence as the largest trainer and equipper of peacekeeping troops, our direct personnel contributions to U.N. peacekeeping missions, 

and our diplomatic influence at U.N. headquarters. 

CONCLUSION

Ultimately, the building blocks of an effective peacekeeping force are well-trained, 

disciplined and properly equipped security forces. Through GPOI and other security 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
16 

capacity building programs, the United States works to help our partners field 

peacekeeping forces of which the vast majority live up to high standards of professionalism, discipline and conduct. While there are many success stories, the track 

record is certainly not perfect. Whether it’s directly or indirectly, through ongoing 

training or through expanding the role of women in peacekeeping and society, we 

are committed to helping prevent and combat sexual exploitation and abuse among 

peacekeeping forces. 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you all for your testimony. 

Look, my guess is that you all are as upset about this as we are. 

You work in an organization that, whether it is at State, certainly 

at the U.N., where trying to make something happen is almost impossible. And my sense is you probably do welcome a hearing like 

this to highlight the problems that exist. 

My understanding is that the level of violence, sexual abuse, the 

kinds of things that are happening to vulnerable people that we are 

supposed to be protecting, is actually much higher than is reported, 

because the very people that are out there, quote, ‘‘protecting’’ populations are also protecting, in many cases, the human rights workers who may, in fact, be reporting this. 

So would that assumption, Ambassador Coleman, be appropriate 

that, in fact, the reporting levels are far lower than they otherwise 

would be because people are out in the field. These peacekeeping 

folks are there to protect them, too, and there are concerns about 

when they are in the field making reports. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I 

think that you are absolutely correct to make the assumption that 

levels of reporting are below what they actually are. 

I think it is for variety of reasons. I think that what we are seeing in the Central African Republic with a lot of the allegations 

coming to light now in particular parts of the country are because 

the security situation is improving, and we are now able to send 

more people out to some of these remote areas where you have had 

a single-country contingent, which in and of itself is a risk factor, 

which the U.N. is now recognizing, that in remote areas we should 

not have single-country contingents. 

So I think you are seeing an improvement in security, which is 

allowing people from the community to feel more safe and comfortable to come forward and report abuses. And what I can tell 

you, Mr. Chairman, is that I think, in the coming months, we are 

going to see more allegations coming to light. I do not think we 

have nearly seen the end of this problem. 

As the U.N. shines a spotlight on this issue, we are going to see 

more allegations, not fewer. 

The CHAIRMAN. Which countries are the ones that are the worst? 

Name them. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. You know, I wish I could say that this 

was just a couple of countries, but what we are seeing is that it 

runs the full gamut of countries, from countries with seemingly 

very well-trained and equipped and disciplined troops. I mean, the 

French forces, the Sangaris forces have been named, two countries, 

Burundi, Gabon, the Tanzanians in the DRC, the DRC troops 

themselves, the Moroccans. 

There are many, many countries that have these allegations. So 

I cannot point a finger at one being particularly bad. We do know 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
17 

that in the Central African Republic, the contingents that have 

been repatriated were the troops from the Republic of Congo and 

the Democratic Republic of Congo and they were repatriated because there was—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I got it. I apologize. I have to get things in within 

a certain time. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have a whole list of countries here that it is beyond belief that some of them—Germany, other countries. 

Let me ask you this. If I could ask a personal question, have you 

all had kids? You all have family? 

If you knew a U.N. peacekeeping mission was going to your 

neighborhood right now, would you not have the same response I 

had, that you would rush home to protect your family from the 

peacekeepers? Would that be your response, honestly? Would you 

please tell me? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have five kids. And 

when I was preparing for this testimony today, last night, and I 

had to talk with my daughters about what I was doing and what 

I would be talking about, it was a very difficult conversation. 

What I can also tell you is, having just recently returned from 

the Central African Republic, I am so thankful that my children 

are being raised in the United States and in an environment where 

rule of law is primary. 

And in the Central African Republic, I met people who are the 

victims of sexual exploitation and abuse. Their families have suffered it directly. And I asked them that question, would you prefer 

that there were no peacekeepers here? And I actually did not know 

what the answer would be. Ambassador Power and I sat together 

with them. Would you prefer, given what you have experienced, 

that peacekeepers return home? And all of them said, ‘‘No, what 

we want is we want accountability. We want justice to be served.’’ 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this. What is wrong with the 

Secretary General of the U.N.? This report, the one that you referred to, is 10 years old. What is wrong with him? What is wrong 

with him? I mean, is he just so inept—inept—that he cannot cause 

a body like this to keep this from happening over and over and 

over again? And we are just now beginning to put processes in 

place? What is wrong with him? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. What I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that 

those processes have been put in place coming out of that report 

a decade ago, but they have never been acted upon in a way that 

they must be acted upon. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is my point. How do we put up with such 

inept leadership at the United Nations? How do we do that? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. I do not think it is ineptitude. I think it 

is a reluctance to take on the opposition of troop-contributing countries that do not want to deal with this issue in the transparent 

way that it must be dealt with, and with accountability. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you that. We have a law here called 

the Leahy Act, which says when we know of things like this, we 

withhold money. Have we withheld money? 

General ROTHSTEIN. So, Mr. Chairman, I cannot give you an example where we have withheld money for these things. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
18 

The good news is, up until recently, we did not have the kind of 

visibility that we needed to be able to pursue these things. 

Now, certainly, with the Leahy law, when we have credible evidence of individuals or units, then we go forth not to do security 

assistance with them anymore, and that is out there. And all the 

units that we train already, we vet through that process. So any 

of the training that we have done has been vetted through that 

Leahy-vetted process. 

What is good about what is happening now, and should have 

been happening sooner I think we would all agree, is that now we 

are starting to get more information coming in from the U.N. that 

we did not have access to before. And that is going to allow us to 

do this better than we have done it before. 

The CHAIRMAN. We may go to a second round with you all, but 

I look at the list of countries that are violators. Most of them— 

many of them, let me put it this way—are countries that receive 

aid from the United States in other forms. I do not understand why 

we continue to send money to countries outside of the U.N. that 

allow this type of abuse to take place. So I do not think we are 

using the leverage that we have. 

We, I think, should be withholding payments to the U.N. until 

this ends or doing some level of reductions, but it seems to me that 

this is not that important to the U.N., or they would have done 

much more about it over the last 10 years. 

By the way, those people you talked to I would say were somewhat fearful to tell you they did not want them to be there, with 

U.N. officials being in your presence. 

But I just do not think the United States is using the leverage 

that we have, not at your level, at other levels, to stop this. And 

I think the U.N. is, I think, in great jeopardy of building enough 

critical mass around here where severe penalties should be taken 

against them with withholding of funds from them, because of their 

ineptness, their lack of concern, their lack of care after 10 years to 

continue to allow this to occur. 

So I hope actions and I plan to be a part of actions being taken 

against them, because it is obviously something that is not very important to them. Otherwise, this could have been stopped a long 

time ago—ineptness, lack of a moral compass, lack of concern for 

vulnerable people. 

Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, thank you all, and I mean that. This is not easy work, and 

we appreciate your commitment and passion to get this right on behalf of vulnerable people globally. So, thank you for your commitment. 

And, I do acknowledge the fact that we now have more information than we had a year or 2 ago. My staff has given me a copy 

of what is on the U.N. Web page, those who have had allegations 

of sexual abuse. It looks like approximately, since beginning of 

2015, 100. I am rounding. It could be 90, but somewhere in that 

range, specific episodes involving about the same number of victims. 

And of all those cases, I went through it quickly, only four have 

been penalized with any jail time. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
19 

And I also point out what the chairman said, that these are the 

reported cases. We know that in some countries the seriousness of 

this issue, even though it is globally acknowledged of being the 

worst types of conduct, but in some governments and some countries, it is not considered to be a serious issue. And that means 

that the reporting is going to be spotty in some of the missions, and 

then the pressure that is on the command structure that has always been there. 

We saw that in the U.S. command structure when we were dealing with trafficking with military facilities located in other countries not participating. It took some while before we were able to 

change the culture. So we know that also is a problem. 

But my specific question to you is, it is one thing to get the Secretary General to withdraw the mission, if they do not do certain 

things, and I am all for that. The two sections that I see in U.N. 

Security Council Resolution 2272, which was just passed last 

month—so the chairman is absolutely right. This has been going on 

for a long, long time, and we finally got a U.N. Security Council 

resolution passed last month. 

Section 4 deals with gathering evidence, but most of that section 

deals with how you deal, rightly so, with victims and making sure 

the mission is well-trained, et cetera. 

And then Section 9 says, ‘‘Urges all member states to take concrete steps aimed at preventing and combating impunity for sexual 

exploitation.’’ 

What are we doing? What is the United States doing? What is 

our leadership doing to make sure that those who have perpetrated 

these horrible acts are going to end up in jail? 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Thank you for your question, Senator. It 

is a very important topic, and I think you have hit on something 

that is key here. 

We have talked a lot about what the U.N. is or is not doing, but 

the crux of the matter is what are the troop- and police-contributing countries doing to hold those who have perpetrated these 

horrendous crimes accountable. 

Based on the new reporting that we have of nationalities, we finally have a tool that allows us to go to those countries to see what 

they are doing, to urge them to do better. 

I think you have mentioned the four cases from last year that 

have gone through the whole process. There are at least another 

20 where trials are occurring now, 20 trials in the Democratic Republic of Congo that that government is conducting against peacekeepers who have been accused of this. Also the Republic of South 

Africa has an onsite court-martial that is going on right now. 

So we are starting to see the actions taken that these countries 

know now that we know what they are doing. We know where the 

troops are coming from and that we are going to continue to shine 

a spotlight on these issues. 

We have sent in our missions to all of these countries just last 

month. This was a subject of high-level discussion with our Ambassadors who were all back here in Washington last month for the 

Chief of Mission conference. 

And we have been very clear with countries that we have gone 

out to that this is not just one sort of discussion, that we are going 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
20 

to be coming back regularly to determine what they are doing and 

holding their feet to the fire. 

Senator CARDIN. So let me just underscore the point that the 

chairman made. 

I support U.N. peacekeeping. A lot of taxpayer money goes into 

U.N. peacekeeping. U.S. taxpayer money goes into it. I have a right 

as a Senator to know that Section 9 of the U.N. Security Council 

resolution is being enforced. I do not believe that the countries that 

have people who have perpetrated this, some of the countries, will 

follow through with this requirement of combating impunity and 

making sure that the perpetrators are held accountable and are 

serving prison time. 

So what are you going to do to provide me with information on 

how we are doing in every one of these countries that have perpetrators, as to how their system of justice is handling this acceptable to international standards? 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Senator, it is very important that we 

continue to follow up with each of these countries in a repeated 

way. And we are doing that, and we are happy to provide you at 

any time with the results of our conversations with these countries. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to be a little more proactive. I want to 

know what you plan to do, working with the Members of Congress, 

to keep us informed in a timely way as to how every country that 

sends peacekeepers to countries, the systems that they have employed to deal with those who have perpetrated these types of acts. 

First of all, I do not think we have enough. I think we have to 

be more proactive, the United States, in making sure those who are 

victimized have an opportunity to come forward. I think we have 

to be more direct with the political structure in the United Nations 

to make sure that every country’s perpetrators are identified, so 

that we have, by country what is happening, and that we follow 

every particular case, because, quite frankly, I do not have confidence in their system to provide justice—international justice, not 

U.S. justice. And I think the more transparency you can put into 

this, the more important it is. 

So I want you to come back to me, this committee, and tell me 

what we are going to be receiving on a regular basis as to what 

is happening in every one of these countries in holding the perpetrators accountable, and how those trials are going forward, and 

whether, in fact, you can say with confidence that they have taken 

steps to prevent impunity for those who have committed these 

crimes. 

Will you do that? 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Yes, Senator. Thank you. 

In fact, we have already started an exercise to do just this. There 

is a whole team of people behind me that are engaged in this every 

day. 

Essentially, what we want to do is combine the new transparency 

that we are getting from the U.N. with our own information that 

we get from our Embassies in the field. And we are preparing what 

we call a data call, that is actually an effort to go out to all of our 

Ambassadors in every country that hosts a peacekeeping mission 

to answer a series of questions based on our own observations, our 

own engagement, our own analysis, so that we can bring that inforVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
21 

mation back to Washington and do exactly what you say to make 

a determination about whether the countries are doing the right 

thing or not. 

Senator CARDIN. So Senator Corker and I, we need to talk a little 

more about this. But the Leahy rule, which is one that I support, 

indicates that we do not give aid to countries that do not adhere 

to basic international standards. And to me, holding those accountable for these atrocities—these types of activities would be contrary 

to international norm. 

So you are going to have to help us draft the appropriate type 

of oversight that will make sure that countries understand that 

they must act to prevent impunity for the perpetrators of these 

crimes. Understood? 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Yes, Senator. Understood. 

Senator CARDIN. Otherwise, we will draft it, and you may not 

like the way we draft it, so I will just warn you. 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Understood. For example, in the current 

year’s appropriations language, which does require the kind of certification that you are describing, we are looking forward to working with you to put that information together. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Isakson? 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate both 

you and the ranking member focusing on this. 

And I appreciate your compliments to the U.N. about transparency and finally making some moves. But putting in a year-end 

report on how many violations of human rights there were, in 

terms of rape against women, is not much transparency. And putting it on the Web site is pretty good, but a lot of these people who 

are victims would not know a Web site if they saw it, because they 

are in very remote parts of the world. 

I want to echo what Senator Cardin and Senator Corker have already said. I completely come from where they are coming from, in 

terms of us in the United States holding these people accountable 

in some way, if not at least by withholding funds or withholding 

funds until they comply with human rights. 

But here is the question. When Senator Corker and I went to 

Darfur, and Senator Coons and I went to the Congo, one of the 

many things I learned is that rape is a military tactic in Africa. It 

is not a violation of law. They teach it. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. 

Senator ISAKSON. When we went to Darfur, you did not see a 

man older than 12 or younger than 72, because they all had fled. 

Every woman had a baby, and I am talking about women who were 

45 or 50 or 60 years old, or at least had weathered and endured 

so much pain they looked like they were that old, because the armies that came in to invade the towns raped the women to break 

up the family unit. The men leave. They take the son with them, 

or the son is conscripted into the army. It is an ongoing process. 

I mean, this is a big practice, and I am not just picking on Africa, 

but it is one place I know where it takes place so much. 

And unless there was a significant consequence of United States 

funds—this may address your organization, General, that you work 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
22 

on—we are just whistling in the wind, because these people are 

taught to do it. 

That was not a question. That was kind of a statement of awareness, which brings me to the question. 

General, is there any status of forces agreement that you know 

that is required or otherwise puts the burden of any country that 

supplies peacekeeping troops, any status of forces by which those 

peacekeeping troops will be held legally accountable in the event 

they commit a felony or a crime? 

General ROTHSTEIN. Thanks for the question. I am going to have 

to defer a little bit. 

I know there is a memorandum between the country and those 

countries that go to a certain mission and the country that they are 

working in, but I do not know the details of that, to be able to unwrap that further for you. 

So I do not know if I could turn it over to you, Ambassador? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. There is a memorandum of understanding, and there is a model memorandum of understanding that 

is negotiated every 3 years. That negotiation is coming up in 2017, 

and strengthening the provisions to be very explicit and incredibly 

direct on sexual exploitation and abuse is one of my goals for that 

upcoming negotiation. 

Off of that model MOU, then there are specific MOUs that are 

negotiated between the troop-contributing country and U.N. 

Senator, what I can tell you is that this is not a problem at its 

core of lack of words on paper. This is a problem of political will. 

And it is a problem that has persisted for too long, where words 

on paper have been ignored. Words on paper have been disregarded. 

So even within the existing MOUs, the TCCs have not abided by 

that. And now, we will not tolerate that going forward. 

Senator ISAKSON. It underscores the point I want to make. As 

long as these troops, many of whom are in an army that was 

trained to use sexual violence as a tool of war, are deployed as a 

peacekeeper, if they realize they are exempt from any accountability for legal enforcement of the law in the country that they are 

in or anywhere else, then there is nothing to thwart or hold them 

back. 

However, if all of a sudden, because of initiatives the United 

States takes and other peace-loving countries take, we start holding people accountable, sentencing people, and people start serving 

punishment and time for rape or violence against women or whatever it might be, then the word will get out really fast. 

I mean, governments are great, and U.N. is the best, in making 

agreements, putting words on paper, but not the very best at putting those words to work in life. 

So my point is, if we can get to some sort of status of forces 

agreement between countries that supply U.N. troops and the U.N., 

or require an agreement between them and the country that they 

are deployed in, not a ‘‘you must in 90 days establish a pattern or 

practice,’’ a status of forces that says you will be liable and you will 

be punished for rape, for murder, or whatever capital felonies we 

want to include in there, and then do our best to aggressively make 

a couple people an example of it. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
23 

Until that sort of thing is happening, that and withholding 

money are the two things that will get these guys’ attention. We 

do not have anybody’s attention right now, none whatsoever. And 

it is a frightening, frightening thing. 

And I think the GPOI, which is a division of the State Department, right? 

General ROTHSTEIN. Yes, sir. That is a division under my leadership. 

Senator ISAKSON. I would hope you would meet with Ambassador 

Froman, the Trade Representative for the United States, and start 

finding out whether or not there are some ways you could tie a 

country’s compliance with fighting violence against women with the 

agreements we make with them in trade and commerce. 

Senator Coons and I opened the markets in South Africa for U.S. 

poultry, which they were being blocked from, by just enforcing the 

terms of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which is a trade 

preference program between the two countries. 

People do not like rape and they do not like violence, but they 

sure do like to eat and they like to have commerce and they like 

to have trade. And if you predicate participating in those things 

with the United States with them being committed to ending violence against women, sexual violence as a practice, then we can 

start going a long way toward making something happen. 

That is the kind of leverage that really makes a difference. I am 

not belittling the annual report. I am not belittling the Web site. 

But I am telling you it is one thing to tell them your name is on 

the Web site; it is another thing to tell them that you cannot trade 

anymore. 

We have gotten countries in Africa to change their labor laws, in 

order to get into compliance with a goal. We had them start importing chickens from the United States in order to participate in 

trade through the AGOA agreement. 

It would seem like to me the State Department ought to try to 

find ways they can leverage what you are trying do in GPOI with 

some of the benefits we do on a daily basis with countries around 

the world who may provide peacekeepers, to see where you could 

tie the two together. 

Then all of a sudden, you have a big stick. And until you have 

a big stick in some of these countries, you ain’t got nothing, pardon 

my English. 

So I would just suggest that would be one way to look at making 

an economic impact in return for better behavior by some of these 

host countries. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Before going to Senator Coons, you mentioned the political resistance. What kind of political resistance exists to keep soldiers from 

raping and abusing young girls and young boys? What kind of resistance do you face at this United Nations body? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. The resistance, Mr. Chairman, is over 

giving up any control or jurisdiction with respect to how issues of 

conduct and discipline are handled by TCCs themselves, by the 

troop-contributing countries. They have resisted our efforts to inVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
24 

crease transparency on these issues out of fear that it would dishonor their troops, that it would dishonor peacekeeping. 

But what I can tell you, and what I say to them, is the dishonor 

is in not being transparent. The dishonor is in not prosecuting 

credible allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse to restore integrity to peacekeeping. 

And so I think what you are seeing in a positive way today is 

that there is no longer a monolithic resistance on these issues. I 

think there are troop-contributing countries that recognize that we 

face a crisis, and they recognize that simply circling the wagons 

and saying no to transparency and no to accountability is actually 

undermining peacekeeping, is undermining their own integrity. 

And so we have seen some progress recently on that front. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would just point out on the list, I know most 

members have seen the list, but a large number of the people that 

are violators are in the peacekeeping mission to make money. I will 

say this one more time. They are in the peacekeeping mission to 

make money. 

So, I am sorry, I cannot imagine how political resistance could 

keep us from enforcing against these countries that make money 

off doing this in this particular situation. 

Senator Coons? 

Senator COONS. Thank you, Chairman Corker and Ranking 

Member Cardin, for both convening this hearing and for your persistence, your voice, your engagement, both of you, in fighting 

human trafficking, in fighting to end human slavery, and for the 

passionate engagement you bring to making sure that we do not 

just hold hearings on the deplorable conditions of the victims of 

sexual abuse and violence around the world but that we actually 

do something and get something done. 

In this particular instance today, we are talking about U.N. 

peacekeeping, and I want thank all of our witnesses for your testimony today of both panels, but especially Ambassador Coleman, 

who I know is working hard to try and institute real reforms in the 

U.N. to make it a more effective institution. 

I, just last week, went to U.N. headquarters in New York and 

met with the U.N. Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, Herve Ladsous, and was struck by the daunting challenges that peacekeepers face in the 21st century, by the number 

of countries where we have U.N. peacekeepers deployed, and by the 

possibilities of peacekeeping in terms of protecting fragile countries 

from falling into being failed states. 

I have strongly supported U.N. peacekeeping efforts in terms of 

appropriations support, and I view it as a cost-effective and a positive way for us to not just keep peace but build peace. 

But the allegations that have been made not just in CAR but, 

Ambassador Coleman, as you have outlined, across dozens of different U.N. missions, across decades now, are simply shocking and 

unacceptable. 

And it is the United States that is footing most of the bill for 

most of the peacekeepers who are committing these atrocities 

against men and women and children. And if the very people who 

we are funding, training, equipping, supporting to be peacekeepers 

cannot be trusted to keep the peace and instead are committing 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
25 

crimes, then our support for U.N. peacekeeping is at risk of doing 

more harm than good. 

So I think we all agree we have to act, not just listen, not just 

take notes, but act to bring an end to sexual exploitation and abuse 

on a wide scale by U.N. peacekeepers. 

But simply providing peacekeepers and police does not fulfill a 

member state’s obligation for the U.N. community of nations. It is 

the responsibility of member states to select and train and oversee 

appropriate units. 

And it is a struggle. As the chairman was just recognizing, many 

of the peacekeeping contributing countries are deploying peacekeepers, at least in the countries that I have traveled to with Senator Isakson, in part in order to get their troops paid. We are not 

attracting the best and most capable and most trained peacekeeping forces from around the world. We need to strengthen that. 

But before we make progress in that, I think we first have to institute meaningful accountability for nations and their peacekeepers who commit these kinds of crimes. 

So I look forward to exploring together ways this committee can 

help Ambassador Power and her team at the U.N. push for accountability that is meaningful and that can work together to end 

these crimes and to change peacekeepers from perpetrators of violence to protectors against violence. 

So if I could, Ambassador, just tell me what peacekeeper training 

methods have proven most effective so far? In fact, I would like all 

members of the panel to answer this question, if you could. 

What has been successful in terms of training to reduce what 

Senator Isakson I think correctly recognized is the training, whether intentional or by experience, of many of the troop-contributing 

countries that sexual violence is being used as a weapon of war? 

What is the training that is most effective at preventing that? And 

what can we do to strengthen that training in combination with accountability? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Thank you. Well, I will allow General 

Rothstein to answer the specific training question, but if you would 

allow me just to say I want to reiterate a point that General 

Rothstein made earlier, which is this is not fundamentally about 

a training issue. I mean, there is no training that is going to guarantee that this problem will not occur. And when you look at the 

troops that have committed these abuses, some of them are among 

the best-trained troops in the world. And we know that they have 

explicit components of sexual exploitation and abuse prevention in 

their training methods. 

So ultimately, I come back to this as an accountability issue. 

There is no troop-contributing country that is immune from these 

types of abuses. It is how they deal with them and how they deal 

with it in a fulsome way that provides prevention going forward. 

Senator COONS. Before we turn to the training question, since we 

have you, Ambassador Coleman, on this, how effective is naming 

and shaming, since a number of the countries involved and implicated are close allies of ours who have troops that are trained and 

perform at the highest level? 

Then we will talk about training for those who lack operational 

excellence or efficiency. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
26 

You are right. I think accountability matters first before training. 

How effective is the naming and shaming that we are advocating 

and that we may work together to strengthen? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Well, thank you, Senator. And I like to 

avoid the phrase ‘‘naming and shaming,’’ because I see no shame 

in being named. The shame is in not following through with accountability. 

I think it really is a watershed for us to be able to identify the 

countries and then to be able to follow up directly with them, and 

not tolerate, not allow, the passivity that has existed, the sweeping 

under the carpet that has existed, frankly, the lack of accountability, to not allow it anymore. 

And Senator Isakson earlier talked about having a big stick, and 

Mr. Chairman, you have talked about money. The money is a big 

stick. 

And to be able say that you will not participate in peacekeeping 

any longer if you do not hold your troops accountable, if you do not 

report back to the Security Council, to the Secretary General, on 

what you are doing, if you do not prosecute these allegations in a 

full and sufficient way, that is ultimately the U.N.’s big stick, because the troop-contributing countries will retain jurisdiction over 

their troops. They can either choose to have a full, appropriate response or not. And if they do not, then, frankly, they should no 

longer be part of peacekeeping. 

Senator COONS. I could not agree more. And as someone who has 

fought for the appropriations for peacekeeping, I am ashamed that 

we have been supporting peacekeepers who are doing horrible 

things. I want to make sure that, working together, we find a 

mechanism for accountability that is appropriate and that uses the 

fact that we are one of the principal contributors to peacekeeping 

support to ensure that this comes to an end. 

General, what sorts of engagements accountability are most effective for troops, whether training or prosecution or other? 

General ROTHSTEIN. So let me start by echoing what Ambassador 

Coleman said. 

My perspective is that training is absolutely necessary, but, 

make no mistake, I do not think it is sufficient. This is a problem 

that is much broader than training, and I believe we have to train. 

Through the training we provide through our security assistance, 

we think it is pretty good. 

And as far as best practices, what we work to do in our training, 

we start in the classroom. We move to scenarios. We move to including exercises. And we also focus very much on unit leadership. 

And we draw on the best of breed. We work very closely with the 

United Nations to find the best practices that work well. We make 

sure they understand their policy. But all that, no matter how well 

you do it, will not be sufficient. 

And so I would echo what Ambassador Coleman said. We have 

to focus on accountability. 

I also echo that we have to focus on how the country is following 

up. Just because you have a rotten individual or maybe even a rotten unit does not mean you necessarily want to disengage from the 

whole country, because as we remain focused on future outcomes, 

if that country is still going to deploy to U.N. peacekeeping, and 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
27 

we want to affect it for the better, then we probably want to be involved in their training and help make it better and not walk away 

and let it deteriorate. 

Those are the difficult decisions we have. 

Senator COONS. I am past my time. I just want to say I am looking forward to the second panel where we are going to hear, frankly, about U.N. suppression of whistleblowers and the real likelihood 

that these abuses are far more widespread than has so far been reported. 

Thank you for your testimony and your hard work on this topic. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would just say that on this issue there ought 

to be some way for us to figure out a way to surgically deal with 

this in a bipartisan manner that gets at this issue and not bring 

in a whole host of other issues, but we ought to be able to figure 

out a way to do it. 

Senator Flake is going to go ahead and ask Senator Shaheen to 

ask her questions. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you all very much for your testimony 

today and for the work that you are doing on a very difficult issue. 

I want to follow up, Ambassador Coleman, with what you said 

about how important it is for the U.N. to actually hold countries 

accountable and to ask, has that ever been done? Do we have any 

examples where that has actually occurred and we have seen a 

change in behavior? And if that is the case, why have we not instituted a process whereby that is done on a regular basis? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

The U.N. has, I think, consistently followed up with the troopcontributing countries. When allegations have come to their attention, they have documented them. They have presented evidence 

that they have collected to the troop-contributing countries. They 

have followed up with the troop-contributing countries, and too 

often have been met with silence and, frankly, have acted with timidity in pushing back on the TCCs in demanding action. 

Senator SHAHEEN. That is the question that I am really asking. 

Can you cite a time in the past when the U.N. has demanded action, if the troop-contributing countries have failed to act, where we 

have denied them funding or continuing to contribute to peacekeeping efforts? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. I know of a number of examples, and 

some of them have happened, frankly, with U.S. urging. 

I can tell you that the Uruguayans in Haiti had sexual exploitation and abuse allegations. We knew about them at the time. 

There was not a Web site. This was not published. But we did 

learn about it. We engaged bilaterally. We also engaged at the U.N. 

And the Uruguayans did take action. They, in fact, held quite a 

public trial in Montevideo. They flew victims from Haiti to the 

trial. 

We know that the U.N. has engaged with a number of member 

states who have been responsive. 

When I was in MONUSCO last year, in the Democratic Republic 

of Congo, I learned about the South Africans and how one of their 

force intervention brigade had had a number of allegations. The 

U.N. brought it to the highest levels of attention in the South African Army, and they dealt with it. They had court martials. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
28 

So it does happen. The issue is that it does not always happen. 

And too often, they simply get no response from a TCC. And when 

that happens, if we do not know about it or if another member 

state does not know about it, it falls through the cracks. It is totally unacceptable. 

Senator SHAHEEN. One of the issues that has been raised is that 

there is no person or agency that is responsible just for this. And 

is it the assessment of the panel that if we had a person in charge 

of just making sure that when there are allegations that troop-contributing countries are taking action to hold people responsible, 

would that help solve the problem? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. The independent CAR panel report, in excruciating detail, catalogued how information was diffused, fragmented, the bureaucratic response that so appalled us. In response, 

the U.N. has appointed Ms. Jane Holl Lute as a special envoy to 

deal with this issue of sexual exploitation and abuse. 

We welcome that appointment. We think that will certainly help 

provide a focal point within the U.N., so that there can never again 

be an excuse that the diffusion of responsibility allowed critical information to fall through the cracks and inaction to occur. 

So we absolutely welcome that. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And has she taken any action yet? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. She is just recently appointed. I know 

that she right now is traveling. She has been in the Central African Republic. She is in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And I 

think you will see action coming out of her office in short order. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Senator Cardin and Senator Corker both mentioned the Leahy legislation that would have the United States 

deny assistance. Is this something that has been done in particular 

instances where there have been documented cases of sexual exploitation and abuse? Have we actually seen the United States 

deny aid to those countries who have failed to take action? 

General ROTHSTEIN. Certainly, when we have credible evidence, 

those things have fallen under the Leahy laws. At the individual 

and unit level, when we have that information, that goes into our 

database that we work both through the mission at post in country 

when those individuals need it to potentially come up for security 

assistance with the United States, as well as the databases back 

here at State main. 

So I do not have a specific example, but if there is someone who 

has those credible allegations against them, they would go in that 

database, then we would not work with that unit or individual. 

And that process is in place and has been in place. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, I guess I am asking a broader question, 

and that is not just about the unit or individual but have we actually denied aid to countries that have contributed troops to peacekeeping missions who have failed to take action with those troops 

on allegations that have been shown to be true? 

General ROTHSTEIN. At the overall country level, we have not 

suspended, to my knowledge, an overall country. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Should we? Should we consider that kind of 

action, if we see repeated abuses and failure to take action? 

I would like each of you to respond to that, if you would. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
29 

General ROTHSTEIN. Sure. I think we absolutely have to be ready 

to consider that. I think it is important we take that on a case-bycase basis. 

And as I said earlier, from my perspective, it is not so much that 

an incident happens. It is what the country does about it. And if 

the country lacks the will to try to follow through on that, because 

like I said earlier, incidents are going to happen. We are not to stop 

that. And so if the country takes reasonable action to follow 

through, then we probably ought to continue working with them. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. No. I am actually asking if they fail to 

take action. 

General ROTHSTEIN. Right. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Should we then look at suspending aid? Ms. 

Jacobson? 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen. 

It is an important question, because we do have to think about the 

leverage that we have in our bilateral relations with countries, but 

I think we have to look at it in a holistic way. 

For example, most of the assistance that we provide to countries 

in Africa is in the health area. We are not in the business, as you 

know, of giving out freebies, because we want to feel good. We are 

in the business of providing assistance that meets critical U.S. national security needs. 

So you would have to weigh whether or not it makes sense to cut 

the assistance that we are providing to prevent the spread of pandemic disease in response to a country’s inability to deal with sexual exploitation and abuse. 

In other areas, we are providing assistance directly to support 

the rule of law system and the development of capacities to enforce 

law. I would not want to cut that. I might want to sort of redirect 

how that is used. 

So it is a tool. It is not necessarily the tool of first resort. You 

have to look at what the assistance is directed to and then make 

the best determination. We are trying to do that now on a case-bycase basis through our engagement with the countries that have 

been named in the report, and that is an ongoing conversation that 

we will have in conjunction, of course, with all of you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Ambassador Coleman? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. I would just say that if countries are not 

responding and not taking appropriate action, they should not be 

included in U.N. peacekeeping. And therefore, our contribution 

through our peacekeeping assessments should not be going to those 

countries. 

So I completely agree that U.S. engagement to strengthen these 

countries and make them better—improved capacity-building, 

training, vetting, all of these things are great. But if there is a willful nonresponsiveness, they should not be part of peacekeeping, 

and our money should not be going to them. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Thank you all very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Senator Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
30 

Can I ask you, General, how we deal with the countries from 

which these soldiers come? 

On the one hand, we are talking about training of the soldiers. 

But does the country itself need training? Does their judicial system need training? Do we need to have a program that goes a step 

before these young men who are the soldiers and get to the adults 

who are in these countries, ensuring that they have the proper 

training so that they are taking the intervention steps necessary 

early on, or else those people are made accountable in their country? Those are the people who we have given the training to and 

have not acted. 

What is that program that we may or may not have in place, in 

order to ensure that the proper training back in the home country 

is adequate? 

General ROTHSTEIN. Senator, thank you for that. You raised, I 

think, what is both important and a very hard topic. 

So as a general rule, I think in our security assistance, in my experience, doing tactical training, training units, pre-deployment 

training, is hard, but we are pretty good at it, as a country. Helping to build those institutions that backstop all of those tactical 

operational units is much more difficult. It is intellectually more 

difficult, I would tell you. 

And I will remark, I just came out of a year in Afghanistan 

where my job was to build the Afghan Air Force. So I was living 

on an Afghan airbase, trying to build their institutions, so I have 

lived a little bit of this myself, and it is hard work. And we do have 

some programs out there where we are trying to get after that. 

Within the State Department, we have a program called the Security Governance Initiative that is taking kind of a pilot level, 

looking at some of these countries, how we get after the institutionbuilding that has to backstop this, the rule of law, some of those 

things. 

The Defense Department, I do not want to speak too much for 

them, because I certainly do not know, but I know they are also 

working some of the defense institution-building programs. 

So those are some of things we are trying to work, but it is difficult. It will take a long time, because change in our own bureaucracy, think how hard it is to make change happen, much less when 

you are trying to work through a foreign government through their 

cultural norms and values. So we are going to have to stay at this 

for little while. 

Senator MARKEY. Right. But I do not think you can solve the 

problem until those leaders in the justice system in the home countries have the proper training and gumption to enforce the laws. 

These are just young men on the prowl in a foreign country, and 

that is a dangerous thing without proper supervision back home. 

So let’s just talk then to whatever, from your perspective, you 

would like to see put on the books. What programs would you like 

to see funded, short of defunding of programs, I guess, in those 

countries to teach them with a stick what we could potentially try 

to have them accept as a standard by the proper educational standards, the proper accountability standards, that are put in place 

without us having to punish the country? 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
31 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Thank you very much, Senator, for that 

important question. 

I just wanted to include the thought that when we started our 

effort last month to go out to every country on the U.N. list, this 

is part of what we were asking them. First, we wanted to make 

sure that they understood the gravity of the allegations against 

them. Second, we wanted to impart on them the critical importance 

of actually following up on these. And third was to open a dialogue 

about what that country needs in terms of assistance to build up 

its own ability to investigate and respond. 

Now those conversations are at an early level. We only got the 

country-specific information last month. But we are going to build 

on that, and those conversations that our Ambassadors in the field 

are having now are going to feed back into our decisions about 

what kind of assistance we can provide, including in the rule of law 

area. 

But I would like to echo what my colleague Ambassador Coleman 

said, that while we have an open door and a willingness to engage 

in this, we should do it. Hopefully, we will be funded to provide 

that kind of assistance. Where countries are not willing, as you 

say, where they do not have the gumption, those countries should 

be barred from peacekeeping altogether. 

I believe that the resolution in the Security Council that our New 

York team fought so hard for last month, 2272, provides for that 

kind of banning from peacekeeping of those countries. 

Senator MARKEY. Okay. So, great. 

So let’s talk, then, about the countries that you think are the 

worst. Give us the worst three countries, any one of you, so we can 

just get an idea of what we are talking about in prioritizing, not 

alphabetically but in terms of their complete and total lack of regard for these human rights violations. 

How would you list those countries? Can you give us the three 

worst? 

Ambassador JACOBSON. I will refer to my colleague, Ambassador 

Coleman, who previously said it is really hard to say who is the 

worst and who is not the worst, because we are only now in a 

world where we can identify what countries are doing. Before, we 

did not have that information. 

Ambassador Coleman may disagree with me, but I—— 

Senator MARKEY. We have countries here—Congo, Morocco, 

South Africa, Cameroon, Tanzania, Benin, Burundi, Nigeria, Togo, 

Rwanda, Ghana, Madagascar, Senegal, Canada, Germany, Slovakia, and Moldova. 

Do you want to pick three? And if you do not want to do put in 

Canada, you do not have to, or Slovakia, perhaps, of the shorter list 

that is left. 

You might want to just give us an idea of where this problem is, 

and then it will focus our attention much more precisely, laser-like, 

on what we should start with. We should probably start with the 

worst, and then we can all know what we have to have as a project 

in order to teach that country how much they should care about 

the issue. 

So would you like to try that, Ambassador? 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
32 

Ambassador JACOBSON. What you are saying is very important. 

We need to identify where the problems are, and we are just starting to be able to do that. 

We are looking at a case like Democratic Republic of Congo. Obviously, the allegations against that particular contingent in 

MONUSCO are absolutely horrific. We think the Secretary General 

did the right thing by sending them home. They are not in peacekeeping anywhere else, nor should they be. 

But at the same time, as part of this new focus on these issues, 

we have seen now that the Democratic Republic of Congo has detained 20 of their peacekeepers and has started trials against 

them. So what we need to see before we can make a judgment is 

where do those trials go. 

Several of the countries that you mentioned have started judicial 

processes or, in some cases, actually finished judicial processes 

against those peacekeepers who were accused. 

So I would say it is too early to answer the question as to who 

is the worst because we haven’t seen—— 

Senator MARKEY. Well, you are saying Congo is there as a country that has already received special attention. 

Ambassador JACOBSON. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Are there two other countries that you might 

want to tell us, if you are going to prioritize as a country, where 

we should be focusing that you think have been particularly bad 

in this area. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Senator, maybe I can just comment, adding to what Ambassador Jacobson has already said. 

Congo, the DRC troops were repatriated because of a pattern of 

abuse. There were so many abuses that they were repatriated. In 

addition, the Republic of Congo, so not only the Democratic Republic of Congo but the Congo Brazzaville, the Republic of Congo, 

troops were also repatriated, again, because of a pattern of abuse. 

There are two different things going. One is a pattern of abuse, 

which speaks to a lack of command-and-control, and the other is 

a pattern of nonresponsiveness. 

On the pattern of abuse, I think as allegations become apparent, 

and we are tracking those allegations, it is easy to see when there 

has been a pattern or it is easier to see when there has been a pattern of abuse. 

In terms of nonresponsiveness, we are only now understanding 

which countries, because they are only recently being named, have 

allegations that have been pending for a long time, where there has 

been inadequate follow-up, inadequate accountability. 

And so in that process, we are also looking at which are those 

countries, and we do not have an answer for you, and we will get 

back to you with that answer. 

Senator MARKEY. Okay. I think it is important for us to know. 

When you are looking at—there are 100 nuclear power plants, and 

these 10 are the least safe. Well, we are going to focus on those. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Yes. 

Senator MARKEY. Of course, right? So you have to narrow it 

down for us, because, as Senator Cardin is saying over here, we 

have an ability to begin to think creatively about all of the other 

relationships that we have with that country that can help to get 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
33 

the leaders who General Rothstein is saying may be reluctant right 

now to have their judicial system fully engaged to make sure that 

they are accountable, that these soldiers are accountable, that the 

military officers are accountable. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. And we look at it very much in the same 

way. That is the analysis that we are doing. 

Senator MARKEY. When will you have that list put together, as 

to who are the worst? Because that would be a great hearing to 

just have those worst offenders focused upon by the committee. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. When you are asking worst offenders, are 

you talking about highest incidence or nonresponsiveness? 

Senator MARKEY. Well, I suppose it is going be a combination. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. I think it is a combination. 

Senator MARKEY. Because the ones who are least responsive are 

the ones that are just turning a blind eye to the atrocities being 

committed. So I am sure it is one and the same, for the most part. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Not necessarily, and that is exactly what 

we are trying to untangle. 

I mean, there are some countries that have had pretty significant 

allegations against them. As Ambassador Jacobson said, you now 

see the Democratic Republic of Congo putting 20 people on trial, 

and so taking quite an aggressive action about that. It is very early 

stages of that. A lot of times it takes, in fact, quite a long time for 

these things to work their way through their judicial system. 

But the point that I want to emphasize is that having a weak 

judicial system, having a judicial process that perhaps does not 

meet our standards, our rule of law, is no excuse for not taking action. There is not one TCC that has deployed to a U.N. peacekeeping mission that does not have the ability to impose discipline 

on their troops. 

Senator MARKEY. No. And we are agreeing with you. And I think 

what Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin are saying is 

we want to help you. There is no excuse, so just tell us who they 

are, what their excuses are, and then we will try to reinforce it, because there is the power of the purse, which the Congress does 

have, that I think can help to focus their attention on issues that 

we would like to see them work on. 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY. So we thank you very much. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, if I could, just to clarify, and I 

think this has been a very helpful exchange. 

If I understand Ambassador Coleman, the United Nations can 

discipline a country that does not take appropriate steps by denying them the right to be a TCC, and that has been done, and the 

U.N. resolution speaks directly to that. 

The problem is if they are nonresponsive on impunity, there does 

not appear to be any direct remedy that the United Nations can 

take, other than the peer pressure or public information that is 

made available. And that is why I think we are looking for ways 

in which we can help in regards to getting action taken in regards 

to impunity. 

I just really wanted to clarify that, because I think they are the 

two points that you had raised before. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
34 

The CHAIRMAN. I still say it is pretty unbelievable that we had 

a report in 2005 and you just now, not you, the entity we are trying 

to reform, the U.N., just now is publishing information. 

I think it speaks to, I am sorry, terrible leadership, lack of concern, unwillingness to deal with tough issues. And I do not think 

it speaks very favorably of the leadership at the U.N. 

Senator Kaine? 

Senator KAINE. Just really one line of question. In the Security 

Council resolution from last month, and I applaud the U.S. and the 

other nations for taking it seriously in the council, were there provisions dealing with redrafts of the MOUs with the TCCs? So 

should there be a standard feature of the memorandums of understanding that talk about training, recognizing training is not sufficient, but then what the accountability provisions would be in the 

kind of complaint? 

And if that is not part of the Security Council resolution, is that 

a profitable area that we should focus some time? 

Ambassador COLEMAN. Thank you, Senator. It is not part of the 

Security Council resolution because those decisions are not taken 

up in the Security Council. They are taken up in the General Assembly. 

And I mentioned earlier that the model MOU on which all the 

MOUs are based is renegotiated every several years. It will be up 

for review coming in 2017, and it is absolutely an area that is ripe 

for review, for making stronger and more explicit actions regarding 

sexual exploitation and abuse. 

Senator KAINE. As we work on maybe a bipartisan and focused 

strategy, strong demand that that MOU when it is renegotiated includes very significant provisions around this is something that I 

think we would all probably agree with. 

That is the only question I have. I appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Do you want to follow up with this panel? 

Listen, we are all very upset. I think you are, too. I know that, 

typically, the administration does not particularly appreciate input 

from folks who sit on this side of the dais. I think, in this case, 

maybe they would welcome that. And I do look forward to working 

with members on both sides of aisle to figure out a way to put additional pressure on. 

I have to tell you, if I had to go to work every day and deal with 

the morass that exists at the United Nations, I think I would have 

to find other lines of work. So we thank you for attempting to deal 

with this morass that is so ineffective in so many things but particularly this. 

But we thank you for your efforts. We appreciate your efforts in 

trying to make sure that training is done on a better level. I appreciate the work you are doing at the State Department. 

We do want to assist you in penalizing countries that tolerate 

this and do not take the appropriate action. So we will be working 

with you very closely over the next several weeks. 

With that, we hope you have an opportunity to hear what the 

witnesses say on the next panel. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
35 

We will hold the record open until the close of business Friday, 

if you could fairly promptly respond to questions that may come 

your way in writing. 

But we thank you for your service to our country and for being 

here today. Thank you. 

All right, so we are ready for the second panel. I know we have 

all been looking forward to your testimony. Most of us had a 

chance to read it last night or this morning. 

But we thank you all for being here, and I would like to recognize the witnesses, Dr. Miranda Brown, who has very powerful testimony, and Mr. Yeo. 

Did I pronounce that correctly? Yes. Thank you. 

And if you could just begin, Dr. Brown. And then, Mr. Yeo, if you 

would move on. We thank you both for being here and for the 

strength of your testimony here today. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MIRANDA BROWN, FORMER CHIEF OF AFRICA 

I SECTION, OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR 

HUMAN RIGHTS, UNITED NATIONS, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND 

Dr. BROWN. Good afternoon. My name is Miranda Brown, and I 

am a former Australian diplomat. 

I joined the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights as the chief of the Eastern Southern Africa Section in December 2012 and occupied this position until December 2014. 

I have firsthand experience of monitoring and reporting human 

rights violations, including sexual abuse in a peacekeeping environment. I am going to give you an insider’s perspective. 

From my experience in the field as the chief of the Eastern 

Southern Africa Section at OHCHR, I know that sexual abuse in 

peacekeeping missions is vastly underreported with bottlenecks for 

reporting at various stages. There are multiple barriers to reporting sexual abuse. 

Victims, many of whom are minors, know that there is a high 

likelihood that perpetrators will go unpunished, and fear discrimination, stigmatization, and retaliation if they report abuses. 

U.N. human rights officers in peacekeeping missions are usually 

the first responders and, hence, the internal reporters of the sexual 

abuse. They have their own fears, both about their physical safety, 

as well as their own job security. Overall, my view is that there are 

significant structural barriers to reporting sexual abuse by peacekeepers and U.N. personnel. 

The current setup, which relies primarily on U.N. human rights 

officers assuming the role of reporters of these violations, is inadequate, poses risk to the victims and staff, and is inherently biased 

against reporting. Such barriers are exacerbated by the wholly inadequate U.N. internal justice provisions or protections to whistleblowers. 

An example of these structural barriers is the case of Mr. Anders 

Kompass who disclosed sexual abuse by peacekeepers in the Central African Republic to the French authorities on the basis that 

the abuse was ongoing and the U.N. leadership in Bangui had not 

taken any steps to stop it over a period of many months or, if they 

had, these steps had been ineffective. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
36 

The abuse continued until July 2014 when Mr. Kompass disclosed it to the French authorities. In April 2015, Mr. Kompass was 

suspended and placed under investigation for his disclosure. 

Shortly after, I blew the whistle to U.S. officials of the Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva about the child sexual abuse in the Central African Republic and the apparent abuse 

of authority by the U.N. leadership in respect to the treatment of 

Mr. Kompass. 

Despite the fact that his suspension was deemed unlawful and 

an external panel established by the Secretary General exonerated 

him, Mr. Kompass remained under investigation until January 

2016. 

These actions are having and will continue to have a chilling effect on the reporting of abuses in peacekeeping missions and have 

badly damaged the reputation and stature of the United Nations. 

While the U.N. Secretary General has announced measures for 

tackling sexual abuse in peacekeeping, these do not address the 

structural barriers to reporting, nor provide protections for U.N. 

staff who report wrongdoing by the institution. These measures do 

not address the U.N. internal accountability for abuse of authority. 

Ambassador Coleman has referred to the dishonor in not being 

transparent. This should apply to the U.N. leadership. Many of the 

measures that you have heard today should apply to the U.N. leadership, because 70 percent of the abuses appear to have been committed by U.N. or nonmilitary personnel. 

I recommend the committee consider the following. 

From the U.N. leadership, demand that all victims of sexual 

abuse by peacekeepers are offered immediate protection, which is 

not currently the case; recognize and address the barriers in reporting sexual abuse by peacekeepers and U.N. personnel; issue 

U.N. systemwide procedures and provide meaningful training to all 

U.N. staff working in peacekeeping missions on reporting sexual 

abuse by peacekeepers and other U.N. personnel; institute mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities; 

recognize and address the inadequate whistleblower protections afforded to U.N. staff; institute zero tolerance for all U.N. officials 

whose conduct fails to meet the highest standards of ethics and integrity; and apologize to Mr. Kompass. 

From the U.S. State Department, demand the above reforms 

from the U.N.; demand zero tolerance for and call for the removal 

of all senior U.N. officials whose conduct fails to meet the higher 

standards; recognize that U.N. staff are not adequately protected 

from retaliation for reporting sexual and other abuses by peacekeepers or U.N. personnel; seek amendments to the U.N. frameworks for the administration of justice and whistleblower protections as detailed in my written statement; implement the provisions of the U.S. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016 Section 

7048 on whistleblower protections; and ensure that the next Secretary General is committed to eradicating sexual abuse in peacekeeping and is committed to protecting whistleblowers from retaliation. 

Finally, I would like to emphasize that my motive for testifying 

before you today and for blowing the whistle on the abuse of auVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
37 

thority and the sexual abuse is to protect the U.N. as an institution 

and to uphold the principles on which it was founded. 

This has come at a considerable personal sacrifice. I lost my job 

at OHCHR, but I remain hopeful that the High Commissioner for 

Human Rights will reinstate me in my position. I hope that my testimony today will not impact on the High Commissioner’s decision. 

Thank you. 

[Dr. Brown’s prepared statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIRANDA BROWN, FORMER CHIEF OF AFRICA I SECTION, 

OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, UNITED NATIONS, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

Good afternoon Chairman Corker, Ranking Member Cardin, and members of the 

committee. Thank you for inviting me to address you today. My name is Miranda 

Brown. I am a dual Australian and British national, and a former Australian Government official. I joined the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 

(DFAT) in 2001 and occupied a number of positions in the Department before being 

appointed as the Deputy Permanent Representative at the Australian Mission to the 

United Nations in Geneva, in January 2008. I hold a PhD in Science and a Masters 

of International Law. 

I must inform the Committee at the outset, that as a former Australian Government official, I am bound by certain confidentiality obligations towards the Australian Government. I have informed the Australian Foreign Minister about my 

presence at the hearing today. 

I have consistently maintained close relations with the U.S. Mission in Geneva, 

built on the foundations I formed during my time as the Deputy Permanent Representative of the Australian Mission to the U.N.. As you know, the U.S. and Australian Governments enjoy the closest of relations. 

I joined the U.N.’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 

as the Chief of the East and Southern Africa (Africa I) section in December 2012, 

on leave of absence (Leave without Pay) from the Australian Government. I occupied this position until December 2014. The East and Southern Africa section covers 

several countries with peacekeeping operations including in Sudan (UNAMID), 

South Sudan (UNMISS) and Somalia (AMISOM). I undertook regular missions to 

the field, including to Somalia and South Sudan, at the height of the crisis. I regularly acted as the Director (Chief) of the Africa Branch at OHCHR, which covers 

the entire continent. I have first-hand experience of monitoring and reporting 

human rights violations, including sexual abuse, in a peacekeeping environment. 

My testimony will focus on: 

• my experience working at OHCHR with sexual abuse in peacekeeping missions, 

• the allegations of child sexual abuse in the Central African Republic and 

Anders Kompass’ disclosure of same, and 

• my experience as a U.N. whistleblower reporting abuse of authority by the U.N. 

leadership in response to the CAR allegations and my attempts to support U.N. 

staff who report the abuses. 

From my experience in the field and as Chief of the Africa I section at OHCHR, 

I know that sexual abuse in peacekeeping missions (including U.N., hybrid and 

other missions) is vastly under-reported, with bottlenecks for reporting at various 

stages, inside and outside the U.N.. There are multiple barriers to reporting sexual 

abuse. Victims fear discrimination, stigmatization and retaliation if they report 

abuses by peacekeepers or civilian and military police (recent figures show a significant number of civilians are involved in the abuses). Victims also fear losing benefits (such as security for their families or humanitarian assistance) either through 

retaliation or removal of peacekeeping troops and they know that there is a high 

likelihood they will not receive justice and the perpetrators will go unpunished. The 

cost benefits do not add up in favour of reporting. Many of the victims are minors, 

who are unaccompanied, separated or orphaned through the conflict. U.N. human 

rights officers located in the human rights components of peacekeeping missions are 

usually the first responders, and hence the internal ‘‘reporters’’ of the sexual abuse. 

They have their own fears, both about their physical safety as well as their own 

job security. 

I would like to describe a typical situation in a U.N. peacekeeping mission. Most 

peacekeeping missions include a ‘‘human rights component’’ with a mandate to monVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
38 

itor and report on human rights violations in the country. The head of the human 

rights component, has a dual reporting responsibility, reporting to the head or deputy head of the peacekeeping mission, as well as to the High Commissioner for 

Human Rights. 

The majority of the human rights officers working in missions are relatively junior (at the P3 level, out of seven professional and higher ‘‘non-political’’ grades). The 

human rights officers are often deployed to remote peacekeeping sub-offices or 

camps where there is little institutional support and the living conditions are extremely harsh. The camps often house significant numbers of internally displaced 

persons (IDPs) in overcrowded conditions. Security within and outside the camps is 

often maintained by the peacekeepers. In such cases, the human rights officers are 

therefore dependent on the peacekeepers for their physical protection. The security 

situation outside of the camps may be so dire that the human rights officers are 

either unable to leave the camps, or have to be accompanied by the peacekeepers, 

in order to interview victims of human rights violations. This creates an inherent 

conflict of interest for human rights officers in terms of reporting misconduct and 

human rights violations by the peacekeepers. In South Sudan, one junior human 

rights officer reported to me her experience of working in one of the remote camps 

which was frequently cut-off by the conflict. She spent significant periods as the 

only human rights officer in the remote camp. The camp was frequently cut-off from 

the UNMISS headquarters in Juba. This human rights officer described the terrible 

human rights violations inflicted on the civilian population, which included torture, 

mass killings, sexual and gender-based violence, forced marriage and abortion. She 

provided timely reports of these violations to her supervisors, who reported the figures to headquarters in Geneva and New York on a regular basis. When I visited 

her in the camp, she also told me about the abuses committed by peacekeepers. She 

said she had been too scared to report them. The victims were IDPs. She worried 

that the alleged perpetrators might find out about her monitoring and reporting the 

allegations and she feared the victims might be subject to reprisal by the peacekeepers. She also feared for her own physical safety due to possible retaliation, directly or indirectly by the peacekeepers. 

Once U.N. human rights officers’ reports of sexual or other abuses by peacekeepers reach the Head of the Human Rights Division in the Mission, he or she 

should immediately report to the Mission leadership for it to inform the highest 

level of the troop contributing government involved—this with the aim to preserve 

the victims’ safety, as well as the human rights officers’, through the swift removal 

of alleged perpetrators from the site. Because the reporting by human rights officials to the Mission leadership has often led to friction, human rights staff may prefer to rely on the alternative reporting line to OHCHR headquarters to report the 

peacekeeper abuses to the relevant authorities. The Mission leadership has frequently ignored the human rights officers’ reports of sexual abuses by peacekeepers 

for political reasons—following-up on the reports can upset the troop contributing 

governments and lead to the withdrawal of troops that are needed by the mission. 

Thus human rights officers have often appeared as trouble-makers to the Mission 

leadership. 

The U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) expressed concern about 

the lack of assistance to victims of sexual abuse: 

Lastly, remedial assistance to victims is very weak. Very few victims have 

been assisted due to lack of dedicated funding and the slow enforcement 

process. Mapping of remedial assistance services has not been undertaken 

in all missions and informal immediate assistance has been required to partially bridge the gap. 

The situation is further complicated by the different types of peacekeeping missions and reporting lines. For example in Somalia, the peacekeeping mission 

AMISOM is run by the African Union and in Darfur, Sudan the UNAMID mission 

is a hybrid U.N. and African Union mission. 

Newly recruited human rights officers in peacekeeping missions receive basic 

training on monitoring and reporting human rights violations, conducted by 

OHCHR. The duration of the training courses vary, but are typically of five days’ 

duration. The OHCHR guidelines on monitoring and reporting, which are available 

on the OHCHR website, include general guidance on monitoring and reporting sexual abuse, but the guidance provided for reporting sexual abuse by peacekeepers or 

U.N. personnel is scant. The guidelines are frequently not implemented at the Mission level. The guidance on reporting child sexual abuse does not include mandatory 

reporting. Nor does it adequately address the issue of ‘informed consent’’ when the 

victim is a child without parents or a guardian. The general training provided to 

human rights officers is focused primarily on monitoring and reporting for accountVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
39 

ability purposes, and not on the U.N.’s protection mandate and the need for intervention to stop ongoing abuses. 

Additionally, most junior U.N. human rights officers hold temporary or ‘‘fixedterm’’ contracts of one or two years’ duration. Their contracts can be non-renewed 

or they can be deployed to another duty station (location) with little notice. The temporary and insecure nature of their employment situation creates further conflicts 

of interests for U.N. human rights officers and other U.N. staff, when determining 

whether to report wrongdoing by U.N. peacekeepers or U.N. personnel. A U.N. 

human rights officer who suffers adverse employment consequences and loses his or 

her job after exposing sexual abuse or other wrongdoing, by peacekeepers or U.N. 

personnel, is unlikely to be compensated or reinstated for two reasons. Firstly, the 

tribunals that rule on such appeals have long been reluctant to intrude upon the 

U.N. Secretary General’s prerogatives in contract renewal. Secondly, the U.N. Tribunal statutes grant the Secretary General discretion on whether to reinstate the 

staff member or provide compensation even after the dispute tribunal has adjudicated the case and found the impugned adverse employment action irregular. In 

practice U.N. staff members are rarely reinstated and if not, only a small amount 

of compensation is paid. 

Overall, my view is that there are significant structural barriers to reporting sexual abuse by peacekeepers and U.N. personnel. The current setup, which relies primarily on U.N. human rights officers assuming the role of reporters of these violations, is inadequate, poses risks to victims and staff and is inherently biased against 

reporting. Such barriers are exacerbated by the wholly inadequate U.N. internal justice system provision of protection to whistleblowers. 

It is against this backdrop, that I would now like to describe to you the events 

that transpired after the disclosure by Mr.Anders Kompass (Director of the Field 

Operations and Technical Cooperation Division at OHCHR) to the French authorities, of the MINUSCA report Sexual Abuse on Children by International Armed 

Forces in the M’Poko IDP camp in Bangui, Central African Republic. MINUSCA is 

a multidimensional U.N. peacekeeping operation in the CAR, established by the 

U.N. Security Council on 10 April 2014. 

I was the Acting Director of the Africa Branch at OHCHR in early August 2014 

during the period shortly after the MINUSCA report came to OHCHR’s attention 

in Geneva. Mr. Kompass was my direct supervisor at the time. Emails document 

my involvement and I was the key contact between OHCHR and MINUSCA during 

the period immediately following the disclosure. I supported Mr. Kompass’ decision 

to disclose the allegations of child sexual abuse to the French authorities. The abuse 

documented in the MINUSCA report was horrific, ongoing and no attempt had been 

made to stop it. Young boys were allegedly being subjected to rape and other forms 

of sexual abuse by peacekeepers from France, Equatorial Guinea and Chad, in exchange for food. The abuse appears to have continued until Mr. Kompass disclosed 

the MINUSCA report to the French authorities in July 2014. Mr. Kompass made 

his report discreetly yet openly, and the French Government expressed its thanks 

in writing through officially registered correspondence. French law enforcement received the disclosure immediately and a team of investigators was dispatched to 

Bangui. 

Nine months later, I learned that [the new High Commissioner for Human Rights, 

Mr. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein had ordered that Mr. Kompass be suspended and the 

U.N. leadership had decided to place Mr. Kompass under investigation by OIOS, for 

his disclosure of the MINUSCA report to the French authorities. Mr. Kompass was 

escorted out of his office on 17 April 2015. 

I was appalled by what appeared to be the deliberate targeting of a U.N. staff 

member, who had taken immediate action to stop child sexual abuse by peacekeepers, and was simply doing his job. Mr. Kompass was my supervisor and I had 

supported his decision to disclose the MINSUCA report to the French government, 

on the basis that the abuse was ongoing and the U.N. leadership in Bangui had not 

taken any steps to stop it over a period of many months, or if they had, these steps 

had been ineffective. I decided to blow the whistle to the U.S. Government about 

my concerns of the apparent abuse of authority by the U.N. leadership in respect 

of the treatment of Mr. Kompass. On 22 April 2015, I wrote to U.S. officials at the 

U.S. Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, outlining my concerns 

and providing relevant documents, including the MINUSCA report. I marked these 

documents as ‘‘strictly confidential’’. 

In the absence of appropriate guidelines for situations of ongoing child sexual 

abuse, Mr. Kompass, whose terms of reference allow him reasonable flexibility in 

acting to address immediate abuses, followed the best practice established in many 

U.N. member states, including Australia, Canada, the U.S., most European Union 

member states, Brazil and South Africa, which have implemented specific mandaVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
40 

tory disclosure and reporting requirements for child abuse. In these countries, there 

is a legal obligation placed on certain citizens, usually professionals working with 

children, or on issues relating to children, civil servants and other categories to report without delay child abuse, including child sexual abuse, to the authorities or 

law enforcement agencies. In some countries, these laws extend to all citizens and 

are not limited to professionals working with children or civil servants. The disclosure must include the full name of the child suspected of being abused, or at risk 

of abuse, and as much information as possible about the child and suspected abusers. In some countries, the professional may report the suspected abuse to the hierarchy in his or her institution, but in others there is a requirement for the professional to report directly to the relevant authorities (usually law enforcement agencies), thereby bypassing the hierarchy. This is to avoid a situation where the professional is placed under pressure by his or her hierarchy not to disclose the information or to redact it. The U.S. is a world leader on mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, with laws enacted in all states. 

Furthermore, although the OHCHR guidelines do not adequately cover child 

abuse, the U.N. overall has a clear position on reporting child abuse, as outlined 

in the guidance and model legislation issued by the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime 

(UNODC), in conjunction with UNICEF, as well as the World Health Organization 

(WHO) reporting requirements. The U.N.’s own guidance establishes the duty to report child abuse and spells out that this duty overrides any obligations to keep reports confidential. 

In early May 2015, the U.N. Dispute Tribunal ruled that his suspension was unlawful and Mr Kompass was reinstated in his position as Director of the Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division. However, Mr. Kompass remained under 

investigation by OIOS. 

A U.S.-based non-governmental organization (AIDS-Free World), obtained documents showing the improper collusion among U.N. oversight offices and top U.N. 

officials, and in response to public protest about child sexual abuse in the CAR and 

the treatment of Mr. Kompass, at the end of June 2015, the Secretary General was 

obliged to establish an external independent panel to review the situation. 

In the fall of 2015, the panel began to inquire about the legality, rationale and 

best practice guidelines for reporting child abuse. Australian Professor Ben Matthews, a world expert on mandatory reporting, provided a submission to the External CAR Panel. 

The External CAR Panel returned its report in December 2015. The panel found 

gross institutional failure and abuse of authority in relation to the reporting of sexual abuse of children and to the investigation of Kompass (who was exonerated). 

Still, the internal misconduct investigation of Mr. Kompass—by the same OIOS office whose chief had been found guilty by the CAR Panel of abusing her authority 

in investigating Mr. Kompass—continued. 

Between October 2015 and January 2016, I wrote a series of letters and emails 

to the U.N. Secretary General and other senior U.N. officials calling for the U.N. 

leadership to desist from investigating Mr Kompass. Mr. Kompass remained under 

investigation until 8 January 2016, the date on which Mr. Kompass was concluded 

with his exoneration.The Kompass case highlights one of the key problems with the 

U.N.’s narrow definition of a U.N. whistleblower, which only covers staff who report 

misconduct by other staff members. The U.N. leadership has made a great issue of 

the fact that Mr. Kompass reported misconduct by national troops, not U.N. peacekeepers. He is therefore not protected by the U.N. anti-retaliation policy (SGB/2005/ 

21). 

The U.N. leadership, through the U.N. Spokesperson says the fact that OIOS investigation failed to substantiate allegations made against Mr. Kompass shows the 

U.N. system of justice works. However, were it not for the findings of the External 

CAR panel, convened only because information about the improper actions of the 

OIOS and U.N. senior officials leaked to the public, it is clear that the OIOS investigation might well have found otherwise. The leaked e-mails among U.N. oversight 

officials showed quite clearly that ‘‘the fix was in,’’ and rather than proceed with 

such a tainted exercise, the then Director of the Investigations division at OIOS 

recused himself. 

There have been serious consequences as a result of the U.N.’s actions. Firstly, 

Mr. Kompass has received neither an apology, nor any sign of appreciation for what 

he did and what the U.N. subjected him to as a result. Secondly, I am convinced 

that the very public pillorying of Mr. Kompass is having and will continue to have 

a serious chilling effect on the reporting of abuses in peacekeeping missions. Thirdly, the reputation and stature of the United Nations, as an international organization that promotes integrity in governance, peacebuilding and human rights, are 

badly damaged. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
41 

While the U.N. Secretary General has announced an intention to implement the 

recommendations made by the External CAR Panel and has announced measures 

for tackling sexual abuse in peacekeeping, these do not address the structural barriers to reporting, nor provide protections for U.N. staff who report wrongdoing by 

the institution. These measures do not address the U.N. internal accountability for 

abuse of authority towards staff members. 

Following a visit to the Central African Republic, recently appointed U.N. Special 

Coordinator on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Ms Jane Holl Lute, stated that ‘‘we 

have to create an environment where the victims ‘‘can come forward when these behaviours have occurred,’’ ‘‘levy allegations without fear,’’ and see that ‘‘justice is 

done.’’ 

Creating an environment where victims can come forward and report sexual 

abuse without fear is the first step. Where children or minors are involved, the U.N. 

must implement its protection mandate and take immediate steps to stop the abuse. 

Currently neither the victims nor the reporters are properly protected and there is 

little accountability for retaliation against either of them. This is a single point of 

failure, which could be fixed. Securing justice for the victims and holding the perpetrators to account is a more complex challenge as it necessarily involves changes 

to existing peacekeeping structures, the agreement of troop contributing countries 

and other Member States. 

There is no Freedom of Information Access at the U.N. and as such the Member 

States must rely on the U.N. leadership to uphold the highest standards of conduct 

and management and on whistleblowers to report wrongdoing, including sexual 

abuse, and abuses of authority. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, David Kaye (an American Professor of Law at the University of California, 

Irvine), stated in his report to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2015: 

Basic structural gaps in international organizations leave whistle-blowers 

at risk in ways that those who report wrongdoing in national systems may 

avoid. In particular, nearly all international organizations are opaque to the 

public, which has limited access to information, and few have effective policies on access to information. As bureaucratically dominated organizations, 

they avoid the strict scrutinization by the press that is often found in national contexts, and they are naturally isolated from direct contact with 

members of the public or the press. 

They are, moreover, subject to reputational demands in order to maintain financial and political support of Governments. Furthermore, persons who report wrongdoing have limited access to independent systems of justice. They generally lack access to national courts when complaining about retaliation, and the human rights 

bodies are unlikely to apply protection in the face of retaliation. The immunities enjoyed by international organizations in national and other external jurisdictions result in minimal legal pressure on the organizations to respond effectively to allegations of wrongdoing. The mechanisms themselves generally face substantial problems of independence because of those structural barriers. 

The track record for whistle-blowers in the United Nations system reinforces the 

difficulties. Very few whistle-blower complaints are fully investigated. Between 2006 

and 2014, only 15 cases of a total of 403 ‘‘inquiries’’ sent to the Ethics Office of the 

United Nations were found to meet prima facie standards for retaliation, while only 

4 were established as retaliatory cases. The low numbers, in a system of more than 

40,000 employees, are likely to send a message to employees that the reporting system will not provide effective protection or redress.’’ The Special Rapporteur concluded by saying: 

Lastly, those who identify wrongdoing—especially evidence of serious legal 

violations and human rights abuses, such as sexual and gender-based violence—should be protected from retaliation when they make public disclosures to the media, civil society or Governments. To be sure, disclosures 

should respect the rights and reputations of others, but in the absence of 

effective internal systems, external disclosure provides a necessary safety 

valve to promote accountability and ensure that the public has information 

about serious wrongdoing. 

The U.N.’s whistleblower protection policy is over ten years’ old (issued in 2005). 

On 8 April 2015, a coalition of U.N. whistleblowers expressed their concerns about 

the U.N.’s whistleblower protections in an open letter sent to the U.N. Secretary 

General and U.N. agency heads. There have been significant advances in whistleblower protection policy and legislation around the world over the past decade, notably in the U.S.. The U.N.’s policy must be updated to reflect these developments. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
42 

Finally, I would like to emphasize that my motive for testifying before you today 

and for blowing the whistle on the abuse of authority in relation to the Kompass 

case, and prior to this in another U.N. organization, is to protect the U.N. as an 

institution and uphold the principles on which it was founded. This has come at a 

considerable personal sacrifice. I lost my job at OHCHR. I remain hopeful that the 

High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein will reinstate me in 

my position at OHCHR in Geneva. I hope that my testimony today, which has not 

held back on what I witnessed, will not impact on the High Commissioner’s decision. 

In terms of reforms and recommendations, I have limited these to issues on which 

I have first-hand knowledge as a senior U.N. human rights officer working with sexual abuse in a peacekeeping context and as a U.N. whistleblower. I respectfully request the Committee consider demanding the following: 

From the U.N. leadership: 

1. Emphasize the U.N.’s protection mandate and demand that all victims of sexual 

abuse by peacekeepers are afforded immediate protection. Secure a public commitment from the U.N. leadership that when child sexual abuse is encountered, 

the U.N. will take immediate action to stop it. Monitoring and reporting for accountability purposes is extremely important, but immediate protection must 

come first. 

2. Recognize that there are significant and wide-ranging barriers in reporting sexual abuse by peacekeepers and U.N. personnel. These must be clearly identified 

and addressed. Peacekeepers are often responsible for the physical protection of 

their victims (many of whom are IDPs) and for the U.N. staff who report the 

abuses. An independent external review should be commissioned to provide recommendations on addressing the serious conflicts of interests inherent in the 

current reporting of sexual abuse by peacekeepers and U.N. personnel. 

3. Issue U.N. system-wide procedures and provide meaningful training to all U.N. 

staff working in peacekeeping missions on reporting sexual abuse by peacekeepers and other U.N. personnel. Institute mandatory reporting of child sexual 

abuse to the appropriate authorities. 

4. Recognise that protections afforded to U.N. staff who report externally sexual 

and other abuses by peacekeepers and other U.N. personnel, are presently inadequate and that changes to existing accountability structures are urgently needed. The Secretary General has referred to the peacekeeper abuses as a ‘‘scourge’’ 

and has recognized that the U.N. has failed to protect vulnerable people, including children, from sexual abuse. He should now recognize that the U.N. has also 

failed to protect its own staff members who reported and exposed these failures. 

5. Institute zero tolerance for all senior U.N. officials whose conduct fails to meet 

the highest standards of ethics and integrity—conduct that amounts to actionable abuse of authority is set too high. The U.N. leadership must itself uphold 

the highest standards. Recent failures to hold U.N. senior officials to account 

have eroded trust in the U.N. leadership. This negatively affects the U.N.’s 

image, reputation and ability to deliver on its important mandate and through 

the impunity it creates, further contributes to a climate of fear among staff 

members that reduces reporting of abuses. 

6. Apologize to Mr. Kompass. 

From the U.S. State Department: 

1. Public confidence in the U.N. and hence its ability to deliver on its mandate has 

been seriously eroded by the peacekeeper sexual abuses and by the Kompass 

case. Demand zero tolerance for all senior U.N. officials whose conduct fails to 

meet the highest standards, irrespective of their role, function or nationality. 

Where the State Department has reason to believe a U.N. official has not 

upheld the highest standards, or public confidence in that U.N. official has been 

eroded, call for the official’s removal from office. This is to protect the U.N. as 

an institution. 

2. Publicly recognize the serious flaws in the protections from retaliation afforded 

to U.N. staff who report sexual and other abuses by peacekeepers or U.N. personnel. As the Kompass and other cases show, existing internal accountability 

structures lack independence and afford little protection from retaliation. Until 

such time as U.N. whistleblower protections are improved, the State Department should exercise its good offices in selected high profile whistleblower 

cases, such as the Kompass case, to limit reputational damage to the U.N. 

3. Seek amendments to the U.N. frameworks for the Administration of Justice 

(U.N. General Assembly resolutions) and whistleblower protections (Secretary 

General’s Bulletin SGB/2005/21) to: 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
43 

♦ Amend the narrow definition of a ‘‘protected activity’’ and hence the definition 

of a U.N. whistleblower to ensure that U.N. staff, such as Mr. Kompass who 

reported allegations of child sexual abuse by foreign peacekeepers are not excluded. Reporting of all violations of human rights must be included under 

the definition of protected activity, regardless of who commits them. 

♦ To expand the U.N. whistleblowers’ access to justice, ensure that they have 

access to independent external arbitration, consistent with the provisions of 

the U.S. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, Section 7048; such access 

does not currently exist. 

♦ Institute special protection measures for whistleblowers who report allegations of wrongdoing by the U.N. leadership. Whistleblowers may be vulnerable to retaliation across the U.N. system (not just in the organization where 

they blew the whistle) and for the duration of their career. Because of the political linkages at the top of the organizations, U.N. whistleblowers can be 

subject to retaliation, in other parts of the U.N. system, even many years 

later. Moreover the nature of immunity of international organizations can 

breed impunity at the highest levels. 

♦ Best practice in relation to burdens of proof. Currently, where there are adverse employment decisions taken against a U.N. whistleblower, the onus is 

on the whistleblower demonstrating retaliation, as opposed to the best practice of placing the onus on the employer to prove that no retaliation occurred. 

4. Implement the provisions of the U.S. Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, 

Section 7048, on whistleblower protections. 

5. Ensure that the next U.N. Secretary General is committed to eradicating sexual 

abuse in peacekeeping and is committed to protecting whistleblowers from retaliation. This is especially important given the lack of Freedom of Information Access at the U.N.. 

I thank this Committee for its ongoing engagement and look forward to working 

with the Committee and U.S. Government to see that meaningful and effective reforms are instituted. 

STATEMENT OF PETER YEO, PRESIDENT, BETTER WORLD 

CAMPAIGN, AND VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY AND ADVOCACY, UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. YEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Cardin and the other members of the committee, for inviting me 

to appear before the committee today. 

I serve as president of the Better World Campaign, which works 

to promote a stronger relationship between the U.S. and the United 

Nations. 

As the previous witnesses have made clear, there is a cancer 

within the United Nations, and it must be cut out. The scourge of 

sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers continues. The 

victims of this abuse are real, and the consequences are as well. 

Just 2 weeks ago, a 16-year-old girl was allegedly raped by a 

peacekeeper from DR Congo in a hotel room. What a sickening violation not only of an innocent girl but the trust placed in that 

peacekeeper by the United Nations and the military that sent him 

to help the people of the Central African Republic. 

Hearing the horrendous reports emanating from CAR, it would 

be natural to want to withdraw all U.N. peacekeepers before more 

damage can be done, but this basic instinct to protect needs to be 

balanced against the good the peacekeepers continue to do there. 

The U.N. mission has played a critical role in the conduct of free, 

democratic elections, which have led to the swearing-in of a new legitimate president committed to rebuilding the war-torn country 

and to successful legislative elections, which just concluded a few 

weeks ago. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
44 

Since 2014, peacekeepers have trained nearly 200,000 children 

on avoidance of unexploded ordnance, a macabre gift left by the 

warring factions in CAR. As a result, Human Rights Watch issued 

a report, which indicated that the U.N. peacekeepers in CAR will 

be critical to disarming rebel factions and reestablishing security. 

So the question is, how do we support the vital work being done 

by U.N. peacekeepers in CAR and elsewhere and, at the same time, 

implement meaningful steps to stop sexual exploitation and abuse 

by peacekeepers and ensure justice for victims? 

If the U.N. is to root out bad actors, whether they hail from 

France or the developing world militaries that are the backbone of 

U.N. peacekeeping, it must show that new policies just announced 

by the U.N. and endorsed by the Security Council will be implemented with unshakable resolve. 

The name-and-shame list issued by the Secretary General of 

countries charged with sexual exploitation and abuse is 

groundbreaking. For the first time in the history of U.N. peacekeeping, transparency is now, at long last, at the core of the U.N.’s 

response to SCA. 

Secretary General Ban has suspended payments to troop-contributing countries whenever there are credible allegations against one 

of its troops. He has repatriated entire military contingents to their 

home countries where there was evidence of widespread and systemic abuse—again, a first. Though long overdue, these actions are 

the right course. 

Even so, and even though they are endorsed by the Security 

Council, these measures will mean nothing unless they are actively 

and consistently enforced, a posture that will anger some troop-contributing countries. Sending home offending contingents is not only 

a black eye on the global stage but a loss in important compensation to that contributing nation. 

And for those countries where there is evidence of widespread or 

systematic sexual exploitation and abuse, they should be blocked 

from joining new missions. The U.N. must say no on deployment 

until demonstrable progress is made. 

The Secretary General has the power to do that, and he must 

wield it, and the Security Council must back him up. 

There are certain to be consequences. One year from now, for example, the Security Council may choose to intervene in a country 

facing a crisis. With lives on the line, the international community 

will rightly look to the U.N. to quickly deploy peacekeepers. Only 

a few countries will offer troops. And of those, some will have a 

checkered human rights record. 

While there will be justifiable demands to deploy a robust force, 

the U.N. must hold firm and reject any nation with a record of 

widespread or systematic abuse. 

As it stands, there is a severe shortage of well-trained troops for 

a growing number of increasingly complex and dangerous missions. 

The U.N. is challenged to recruit the best trained and equipped 

troops. 

If peacekeeping is ultimately to free itself from the stain of sexual abuse, the responsibility must not sit with the U.N. alone. 

Other member states need to answer the call. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
45 

Last year’s peacekeeping summit resulted in pledges of 40,000 

more peacekeepers from a diverse group of countries. Ensuring 

these pledges actually materialize and that troops deployed to 

hardship posts such as CAR and Mali will be instrumental in backing up the U.N.’s denial of certain countries over their records of 

sexual exploitation and abuse. 

In conclusion, it is absolutely shameful that it took the high profile sexual exploitation and abuse cases in CAR and elsewhere to 

grab the world’s attention to this crisis and to pull open the curtain 

to the culture of impunity which exists in U.N. peacekeeping. 

The U.N. and members of the Security Council are now seized 

with developing and implementing solutions to this crisis. We have 

to make it right, because we have no other choice. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Thank you. 

[Mr. Yeo’s prepared statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER YEO, PRESIDENT, BETTER WORLD CAMPAIGN, AND

VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND ADVOCACY, UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Cardin for inviting me to appear 

before the committee today. 

I serve as President of the Better World Campaign, which works to promote a 

stronger relationship between the U.S. and the U.N. 

As the previous witnesses have made clear, there is a cancer within the United 

Nations—and it must be cut out. The scourge of sexual exploitation and abuse by 

UN Peacekeepers continues, despite Secretary General Ban’s commitment to a zerotolerance policy and repeated promises from U.N. Member States to take meaningful action. 

The victims of this abuse are real. And the consequences are as well. Just two 

weeks ago, a 16-year old girl was allegedly raped by a peacekeeper from DR Congo 

in a hotel room. 

What a sickening violation not only of an innocent girl, but the trust placed in 

that peacekeeper by the U.N. and the military that sent him to help the people of 

the Central African Republic. 

Hearing the horrendous reports emanating from CAR, it would be natural to want 

to withdraw all U.N. peacekeepers before more damage can be done. But this basic 

instinct to protect needs to be balanced against the good that peacekeepers continue 

to do there. 

The U.N. mission has played a critical role in the conduct of free, democratic elections, which has led to the swearing-in of a new legitimate President committed to 

rebuilding the war-torn country, and to successful legislative elections which just 

concluded a few weeks ago. 

Since 2014, peacekeepers have trained nearly 200,000 children on avoidance of 

unexploded ordinance—a macabre gift left by warring factions in CAR. 

As a result, Human Rights Watch issued a report which indicated that the more 

than 12,000 U.N. Peacekeepers in CAR will be critical to disarming rebel factions 

and re-establishing security. 

So the question is: how do we support the vital work being done by U.N. peacekeepers in CAR and elsewhere, and at the same time, implement meaningful steps 

to stop sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers and ensure justice for victims 

like the 16 year old girl in the hotel room? 

If the U.N. is to root out the bad actors—whether they hail from France or the 

developing world militaries that are backbone of U.N. peacekeeping—it must show 

that the new policies just announced by the U.N. and endorsed by the Security 

Council will be implemented with unshakable resolve. 

The ‘‘name and shame’’ list issued by the Secretary-General of countries charged 

with sexual exploitation and abuse is groundbreaking. For the first time in the history of U.N. peacekeeping, transparency is now, at last, at the core of the U.N.’s 

response to SEA. Secretary-General Ban has suspended payments to troop-contributing countries wherever there is a credible allegation against one of its troops. He 

has repatriated entire military contingents to their home countries where there was 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
46 

evidence of widespread and systematic abuse—again, a first. Though long overdue, 

these actions are the right course. 

Even so, and even though they are endorsed by the Security Council, these measures will mean nothing unless they are actively and consistently enforced—a posture which will anger some troop contributing countries. Sending home offending 

contingents is not only a black eye on the global stage, but a loss in important compensation to that contributing nation. 

And for those countries where there is evidence of widespread or systemic sexual 

exploitation and abuse, they should be blocked from joining new missions. The U.N. 

must say NO on deployment until demonstrable progress is made. The SecretaryGeneral has the power to do that—he must wield it, and the Security Council must 

back him. 

There are certain to be consequences. One year from now, for example, the Security Council may choose to intervene in a country facing a crisis. With lives on the 

line, the international community will look to the U.N. to quickly deploy peacekeepers. Only a few countries will offer troops, and of those, some will have checkered human rights records. While there will be justifiable demands to deploy a robust force, the U.N. must hold firm and reject any nation with a record of widespread or systemic abuse. 

At the same time, this does not mean that the international community should 

accept a weak response to conflict and mass atrocities. Rather, we must demand 

that more countries shoulder the load and do so in an ethical and principled way. 

As it stands, there is a severe shortage of well-trained troops for a growing number of increasingly complex, dangerous missions. The dramatic increase in the size 

and scope of peacekeeping missions approved by the U.N. Security Council, together 

with the near-withdrawal from peacekeeping by European and American forces, has 

taxed the ability of the U.N. to recruit the best trained and equipped troops. If 

peacekeeping is to ultimately free itself from the stain of sexual abuse, the responsibility must not sit with U.N. alone; other member states need to answer the call. 

To its credit, the United States took some decisive steps to improve this dynamic 

in chairing a United Nations peacekeeping summit last fall. The Summit resulted 

in pledges of 40,000 more peacekeepers from a diverse pool of countries. Ensuring 

those pledges materialize and that troops deploy to places like CAR and Mali will 

be instrumental in backing up the U.N.’s denial of certain countries over their 

records on sexual exploitation and abuse. 

But more can and must be done on training, investigative support, and vetting. 

A few suggestions: 

• The State Department’s Global Peace Operations Initiative has trained over 

200,000 peacekeeping troops since 2005. The U.S. should enhance the sexual 

abuse and command and control components of GPOI across all of its peacekeeping training centers. 

• The U.S. and other countries should use both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy to push troop contributing countries to take disciplinary action against 

soldiers proven to engage in sexual exploitation and abuse. DR Congo is currently trying 3 of 21 of its peacekeepers, with more trials over the next several 

months. Sadly, that’s the exception rather than the rule in terms of justice. 

• To investigate allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse, the U.N. has established two different mechanisms in conjunction with troop contributing countries. The U.N. must ensure that these investigation teams are fully trained, 

better coordinated, and have the ability to not only interview victims, but refer 

them to medical and psycho-social help and access to legal counsel so they can 

seek justice. 

• The U.N. currently has a rudimentary database for vetting personnel to make 

sure that those who have been kicked out of missions cannot return. As a country with a wealth of expertise in computing, the U.S. could help advance 

progress and improve the technology, possibly by harnessing the talent of the 

private sector. 

In conclusion, it is shameful that it took the high-profile sexual exploitation and 

abuse cases in CAR to grab the world’s attention to this crisis and to pull open the 

curtain to the culture of impunity which exists in U.N. peacekeeping. The U.N. and 

members of the Security Council are now seized with developing and implementing 

solutions to this crisis. But we need to be invested over the long-haul—in getting 

more peacekeeping troops into the system so the U.N. doesn’t deploy the wrong 

troops to a crisis; in ensuring that allegations are fully investigated and justice is 

served by the countries who contributed the troops; and in providing victims and 

their families with the help they so desperately need. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
47 

We have to make it right because we have no other choice. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both for your testimony. 

Dr. Brown, if you could briefly share with us why you are at 

present not employed? 

Dr. BROWN. I believe that the reason my contract was not renewed was out of retaliation, because I am a whistleblower. 

The CHAIRMAN. You said something that I think we may have 

missed an opportunity with the last panel to pursue as much as we 

should. You said that 70 percent of abuses actually take place by 

civilians that work directly for the United Nations. Is that correct? 

Dr. BROWN. That is my understanding, and I think it would be 

useful to check with the U.N. on that statistic. 

And if so, I would suggest that all of the measures that are being 

applied to the troop-contributing countries should also apply to the 

70 percent, to the U.N. staff, as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Yeo, do you agree with the order of magnitude taking place at the civilian level with direct employees? 

Mr. YEO. There are definitely cases where civilian employees are 

engaged in cases of sexual exploitation and abuse. The 70 percent 

figure strikes me as high, but I look forward to working with you 

to figure out how that number was determined. 

But I also agree with Dr. Brown’s recommendation, which is, any 

tools used to investigate charges of sexual exploitation and abuse 

involving the military personnel and police-contributing countries 

should also apply to civilian employees. 

The CHAIRMAN. We spend a lot of time talking about the sovereignty, if you will, and the countries dealing with their own, but 

the fact is we should have spent more time—we are doing it now— 

just on the civilian side itself. 

I am looking through a list, and I may not be catching every single one, but I think I could be. It appears to me that in every single 

case relative to civilians, that I have access to at present—here is 

one with suspension. But in almost every case, it is a pending 

issue. 

Can you share with me why that would be the case and not yet 

adjudicated? 

Dr. BROWN. I cannot comment on this figure, but, obviously, my 

perspective is that there is a lack of accountability inside the U.N., 

just as there has been for the troop-contributing countries. And 

that does need to be addressed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, I mean, you were out in the 

field. I know Mr. Yeo may have a different perspective. But what 

is it at the U.N. that would cause them with their own employees 

that work directly for the United Nations to tolerate this and to not 

be more forceful in ensuring that this is not happening? 

Mr. YEO. I think that one thing to consider here is that the level 

attention that is now being paid to sexual exploitation and abuse, 

not only by police and military-contributing countries but also by 

the civilian, is unprecedented, in part because of the horrendous 

situation that is coming out from CAR. 

So we, as a major 22 percent contributor to the regular budget 

of the U.N. and 28 percent to U.N. peacekeeping, need to insist 

that any employee of the U.N. be absolutely subject to the same 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
48 

forms of discipline and dismissal and justice as we are insisting 

upon policing and the troop-contributing countries. 

The CHAIRMAN. If I could, before Dr. Brown responds, why would 

that not just be the case? I mean, just naturally, why is it that the 

United States needs to apply pressure on the U.N. for the U.N. to 

want to prosecute people who work for them who are involved in 

sexual exploitation? I mean, I do not get it. 

Mr. YEO. I think there are a couple of factors at work here, none 

of which justifies it. One factor is that so many of the appointments 

within the U.N. system are derivative of specific countries wanting 

to place particular employees, and so that creates this memberstate politics within the U.N. system, the 193 member states, that 

sometimes makes it difficult for member states to want their employees to be punished. 

That is not an excuse, but I think that dynamic is sometimes at 

work, and in a very unhelpful and wrong way. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that is the same thing that occurs on the 

troop side, right? I mean, they have member states who do not 

want actions taken against their own military personnel. 

Mr. YEO. For sure, in the case of our troop-contributing countries, it is a little bit more specific because they specifically will not 

contribute troops to U.N. peacekeeping missions if they do not have 

total control of the discipline of their troops. So if we insist that 

all discipline cases be adjudicated jointly, for instance, between the 

U.N. and the troop-contributing countries, then, in fact, many nations that are currently the backbone of peacekeeping may choose 

to withdraw. 

That may be a price that we have to pay. And then the Security 

Council will have to figure out in a more systematic way how we 

get more countries into U.N. peacekeeping that actually can make 

sure their peacekeepers carry out their work in an ethical and principled way. To do otherwise is unacceptable. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Brown, your perspective? Why does this culture exist? And why would the U.N. be reticent to deal with it? 

Dr. BROWN. I hate to say it, but it reminds me a little bit of the 

child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. I think that there has 

only now been the realization of the problem at the senior levels 

in the U.N. There have been cover-ups. 

I hope that this sudden exposure will result in changes, but there 

needs to be some structural changes, particularly in terms of reporting, because, at the moment, you have multiple conflicts of interest at multiple levels. Just collecting the information is problematic. 

The Human Rights officers in the field often face pressures on 

them not to report. For example, in the case of U.N. staff, they are 

having to report on their colleagues. They may have to report on 

their supervisors. The structures are not in place to prevent them 

from receiving retaliation. 

Most of them are junior staff on short-term contracts. Their contracts could be suddenly not renewed. They can be transferred out 

of the location. There is no incentive for them to report, in a way, 

for them to report on their colleagues. There is no protection. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
49 

And then following on from that, the internal structures, for example, the Office of Internal Oversight Services, lacks independence. 

There are so many problems in relation to accountability within 

the U.N. Now, I think these problems can be addressed. I really do. 

I think they can be addressed, but there needs to be recognition 

first, and that is what I am calling for. There must be recognition 

by the U.N. leadership that there are internal problems that have 

to be fixed, including in relation to, obviously, these abuses that 

are being committed by U.N. staff, but also protection for the staff 

who report the abuses, be it by U.N. staff or peacekeepers. 

The CHAIRMAN. My time is up, but are you telling me that with 

this report that came out in 2005, which apparently was somewhat 

earth-shattering at the time, are you telling me that the leadership 

at the United Nations has just become aware of this problem? 

Dr. BROWN. No, they have not just become aware of this problem. 

But rather like the Catholic Church, it has taken them some time 

to actually act on it. I hope that they are going act on it, but they 

must do so. 

Mr. YEO. I think the other challenge is for sure the highest levels 

of the U.N. have known about this even before 2005, so an issue 

of whether U.N. officials knew about sexual exploitation and abuse 

and were taking action. As Ambassador mentioned earlier in her 

testimony, there is ongoing dialogue for over a decade between the 

United Nations and troop-contributing countries about ongoing 

cases of sexual exploitation and abuse. 

But I think it has taken this case to break it open and get this 

high-level commitment. 

I think the other thing to consider here is the U.N. Security 

Council for over a decade, in both Republican and Democratic administrations, has been pushing for increased peacekeeping missions, increasingly complex, larger missions. And as a result, when 

the U.N. comes back and says there are not enough peacekeepers 

in the system, there is a real tension between do we approve larger, more complex missions when we do not really have enough welltrained soldiers with appropriate command-and-control to carry out 

those missions. 

So it is not simply a case of one individual in the U.N. running 

the whole operation. The Security Council has been well-aware of 

this situation for over a decade and yet continues to approve larger 

and more complex missions, despite the fact that there are not 

enough troops in the system. It is complex. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both. 

Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank both you. 

Dr. Brown, I listened to your last comment and your prepared 

statement. I can assure you that we take the integrity of our hearings pretty seriously. So we very much appreciate you being here, 

and we will protect the integrity of our committee process, so thank 

you for your participation. 

I looked at the information provided to us by the United Nations, 

at least from their public Web site. They show one civilian episode 

in 2016, and then in 2015, I did some quick math, and they showed 

14, which would be about 20 percent. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
50 

Now, I do not necessarily believe these are accurate numbers, do 

not get me wrong. But when you reply to Chairman Corker that 

we should ask the United Nations, I am not sure we are going to 

get today the right numbers. I just do not know if that is available 

to us, but we will try. 

I just had a conversation with my staff, and I agree with Senator 

Corker. We are going to be asking the first panel some additional 

questions for the record dealing with the United Nations’ accountability for, particularly, the civilian issues. 

But there are two parts to the United Nations’ responsibility. 

One is how they, in fact, supervise the activities of the participating countries, what they do with the TCCs to watch their conduct. It is not just a matter of sending them home. It is a matter 

of making sure they do not do wrong when they are in theater. 

That is a supervision responsibility, which falls with the United 

Nations. And yes, we want to take action against countries that are 

not responding correctly, but there should be accountability within 

the United Nations itself. 

Secondly, there needs to be a certain responsibility of the United 

Nations to give clear direction to its civilian work force as to what 

is expected, to give them adequate training, but to have adequate 

supervision, again, so that the conduct is clearly understood, and 

zero tolerance is clearly understood, and, of course, if there are violations, that there is accountability, accountability not only in removing those individuals but holding them responsible for their actions. That may very well require the United Nations to have arrangements with the way it employs its personnel, to make sure 

that there is accountability for their activities. 

So I will be asking those types of questions of our first panel in 

an effort to try to see how we can complete the circle here, because 

I think you do raise a very valid point. It is fine to say the TCCs 

are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, and they should 

be removed, and I agree with that. There are also primary responsibilities with the United Nations, and those responsible at the 

United Nations for how these missions are deployed and supervised, et cetera, and how the civilian personnel are expected to behave, and making sure that, in fact, they do carry that out or are 

held accountable. 

So I guess my point is this, have either one of you seen actions 

taken to deal with what I just said? Is there clear direction given 

by the United Nations on civilian personnel? Is there clear supervision? Is there clear training? Are there clear ways of being able 

to get the information on those who are violating, so that they can 

be removed and held accountable? Is there a clear line of responsibility and accountability from the United Nations to the civilians 

that are in these countries in which we have the U.N. missions? 

Mr. YEO. Two quick thoughts, which is, first of all, I think it is 

important to note that the Secretary General did remove the head 

of the U.N. mission in CAR when these allegations and charges 

first came to light, and I think that is exactly the type of accountability that was long overdue and necessary and will hopefully 

send a signal to future military and civilian commanders that when 

missions that are under their supervision—as you said, they are responsible for making sure that the troops of the various continVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
51 

gents are actually performing their duties in an ethical and principled way. If they fail to do that, then they need to do be dismissed from their job. In the case of Central African Republic, that 

did occur. 

Second of all, in terms of civilian employees, civilian employees 

that are deployed to all of these missions receive extensive training 

about sexual exploitation and abuse, human rights training. But as 

the previous panel indicated, training is not a substitute for appropriate supervision of work. 

So in the case of civilian employees, we need to ensure that the 

people that are at the highest levels within each individual mission 

are fully responsible for the actions of their employees and, at the 

earliest possible moment that the allegations are raised of sexual 

exploitation, that they are reported to the right authorities within 

the U.N. system and action investigations are taken, in fact, the 

new immediate response teams that the U.N. has established to 

make sure that within 5 to 10 days that the actual evidence of 

crimes related to sexual exploitation and abuse are preserved, are 

deployed in the case of both civilian and military employees. So I 

could not agree more. 

Senator CARDIN. We know that, historically, within military command, there has always been a challenge, in particularly colleagues 

reporting misconduct. We know the historic problems, and we try 

to take action to deal with that. 

On the civilian side, Dr. Brown, is there the same type of inherent problems on reporting colleague’s misconduct? 

Dr. BROWN. I believe so, yes, and I think there are a number of 

other problems. For example, prosecution would require the lifting 

of immunity of the staff. 

Also, the way the system is currently constructed, it would require the U.N.’s Office of Internal Oversight Services to investigate, 

and we are talking there about U.N. staff investigating other U.N. 

staff. There are inherent conflicts of interests within the system 

that will need to be addressed. 

Senator CARDIN. So with the immunity, in other words, they are 

immune from criminal prosecution in the host country? 

Dr. BROWN. In theory. 

Mr. YEO. But I would also like to make it clear that the Secretary General, in writing, has made it quite clear that no U.N. 

employee who is the subject to sexual exploitation and abuse, if 

they have diplomatic immunity, it will be waived. Most civilian employees who are deployed as part of peacekeeping missions actually 

do not have diplomatic immunity. But in either case, the Secretary 

General and the U.N.’s team have made it quite clear that the diplomatic immunity will not—— 

Senator CARDIN. Knowing that the countries in which the peace 

missions are situated, the capacity there to deal with these types 

of issues are limited. 

Dr. BROWN. That is correct. 

Going back to the point of the investigation itself, we have an inherent problem because you have a U.N. investigative body investigating possibly quite a senior official in a country. You have an 

inherent conflict of interest there. You still have a conflict of interest with, in my view, with the U.N. Office of Internal Oversight 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
52 

Services investigating a TCC, a case of a TCC, or the discipline and 

conduct unit investigating it, or even the human rights officer investigating it. 

But when it comes to actually U.N. staff, that conflict of interest 

is exacerbated, and I think that will need to be addressed, along 

with, if I may, the problems inherent in the reporting lines themselves, because there are multiple barriers to this information moving up the chain. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, the questions I think I would ask from the 

United Nations—we do not have the right people here—is what capacity do they build in countries where there are U.N. peacekeeping missions to be able to have the capacity to prosecute those 

who violate the laws in those countries on sexual exploitation and 

abuse. 

That would be an interesting point, to see how the United Nations is helping a country to be able to hold accountable those who 

violate these laws. 

Mr. YEO. Or these employees need to be repatriated to their 

home countries and subject to prosecution at home. 

Senator CARDIN. Yes. 

Mr. YEO. So there needs to be prosecution either in country, 

which is often a challenge, or back home. 

Senator CARDIN. But for civilians, it may be even more complicated. 

Dr. BROWN. Correct. I think so. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just back to the pressure, Mr. Yeo, you were 

talking about earlier where you have these expanding peacekeeping needs that are complex. You have pressure for more of that 

to occur. I look at the types of populations generally speaking that 

are being, quote, ‘‘protected.’’ I mean, is there some institutional 

disrespect for the types of people that these peacekeeping missions 

are being sent out to protect? Is there something there that we 

need to understand? 

Mr. YEO. I think the disrespect that occurs is between individual 

soldiers and the disrespect as a result of the individual actions they 

are taking, the crimes they are committing, as a peacekeeper. 

But having visited many different U.N. peacekeeping missions 

around the world, I am on honestly shocked by the willingness of 

these peacekeepers to serve away from their home for sometimes 

months or years on end, protecting people they do not even know. 

And they are doing it at great personal risk. When you look at, 

for instance, the peacekeepers in Mali that are battling back terrorist elements in Mali, there has been dozens of peacekeepers 

killed there. Three French peacekeepers were just killed yesterday 

in Mali. 

So it is a complex situation. I think most peacekeepers are absolutely committed to civilian protection. 

We had a wonderful American who was deployed to South Sudan 

as part of a peacekeeping mission. And the military showed up at 

the gates. They demanded that he turn over all the young men in 

the camp, and he absolutely refused. He stood in the gates, and he 

said, ‘‘You may not come in.’’ And as a result, the people that day 

were saved. Of course, he, from my perspective, is a hero for saying 

that. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
53 

I recently was in South Sudan. There are 200,000 people today 

living in these camps that largely owe their lives to the fact that 

we have peacekeepers from around the world guarding these 

camps, trying to do their best to protect the people inside who 

would otherwise be killed by other elements within the country. 

So it is very complex. I do not think there is a culture where they 

do not want to protect the people they are supposed to protect. I 

think this is a case of individual soldiers doing wrong, and they 

need to be punished for it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this, based on what you just 

said, are we do you think today in this hearing getting an unbalanced view of this issue? 

Mr. YEO. No, I do not think so at all. I think that what has happened in CAR, what has happened in Mali, and what has happened 

in terms of the sexual exploitation and abuse in these other countries, is absolutely horrific, and it gives the entire concept of U.N. 

peacekeeping a bad name. 

This hearing is absolutely well-timed. It needed to occur. And 

most importantly, it needs to occur a year from now and 2 years 

from now. This is not going to be fixed overnight. 

And we need to make sure that there is bilateral and multilateral pressure for years to come, so that 10 years from now, we are 

not looking back at this era and saying we worked on this 10 years 

ago. Ten years from now, U.N. peacekeeping needs to be the model 

for this. 

I know this is something that Jane Holl Lute, who has been appointed by the Secretary General, and, as you know, is a former 

Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is looking at. What are the best practices for training and command-andcontrol? How can we borrow from militaries around the world, including the United States, to make sure that we can work with the 

countries that are the backbone of peacekeeping to improve their 

performance? 

It is a long haul, and it is going to require a lot of bilateral and 

multilateral pressure. 

And, no, this hearing is not unfair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask my question, again, because the 

disrespect that I was talking about is you have the hierarchy at the 

United Nations that has these complex missions, as you mentioned, 

and needs more in the way of peacekeepers, and yet are sending 

out countries that are known to have problems, I am sorry, where, 

as Senator Isakson mentioned, in many places, rape is certainly an 

act of war. It is part of war. 

I was just in the Balkans. It is unbelievable to know what and 

see and understand and meet women who were dealt with there in 

that way. It was an act of war. It was a part of war. 

So back to the disrespect I am referring to, I am talking about 

not the soldiers. I am talking about, at the U.N. level, is there a 

sense that there is just so much in the way of need that, in these 

populations, so what? Is there something there that I am missing? 

Mr. YEO. I think there was acceptance of what was viewed at the 

time as a low-grade, ongoing problem, and that acceptance extended for years on end not just by the highest levels within the 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
54 

U.N., but by the U.N. member states, including members of the Security Council. 

I do not think that acceptance is there any longer. If you look at 

what is new, as a result of what has happened, we actually see, 

for the first time ever, military units being repatriated. And you 

have, for the first time ever, a policy endorsed by the Security 

Council saying no more units may be deployed if they have a track 

record of systematic abuse, or they refuse to get back to the U.N. 

as to what they have done in terms of discipline, or they refuse to 

investigate. 

This is the first time they have done this. This is new. And we 

need to ensure that it is enforced, so that units from DR Congo are 

not deployed in future peacekeeping missions unless they fundamentally change the way they do business. 

It has to change. And the U.N. is now committed to that. It has 

been endorsed by the Security Council. And I think acceptance of 

these practices, I think, is over. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Brown? 

Dr. BROWN. If I may, I agree entirely with what Mr. Yeo has 

said. I would just add that the U.N. has failed, from what I can 

see, to accept that it itself has a problem, and that is what needs 

to happen. There needs to be a recognition that it needs to reform 

itself. It needs to recognize that it does not have the accountability 

structures internally, and most of the measures that apply to the 

TCCs must apply to the U.N. 

Furthermore, the staff who take great risks in reporting the sexual abuse must be protected. We have had this terrible case with 

Mr. Kompass, which has just sent a chilling message through the 

system. And that must be rectified. Otherwise, we are going to find 

that staff will simply not report. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I want to thank both of our witnesses. 

This has been very helpful to us. 

But, it really starts with the recognition that sexual exploitation 

and abuse is not acceptable, and that message has to be communicated by the top leaders. So it starts with the top leadership of 

the United Nations. 

And it has to be not just understood by everyone in the leadership of the United Nations. It has to be enforced by everyone in the 

hierarchy of United Nations, so that they understand that it is different than it has been in the past. 

It does not mean that people in the past did not look at it as serious, but the institution did not look at it as serious. And that has 

to change. 

But it requires a cultural change, and without that, you are not 

going to get the type of action that we want to see. And the action 

we want to see is that the member countries that are participating 

in the United Nations understand that that cannot be tolerated, so 

their leadership impresses upon their participants that this will 

not be allowed, and that if you are involved, it is going to be very 

severe, and that you are bringing disrespect to our country’s participation and jeopardizing our standing, and we are not going to 

allow that to happen, and it is not allowed. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
55 

That is what you are going to have to have for there to be the 

type of change that we want to see occur. 

So, yes, we have seen some encouraging signs. You have mentioned some of the encouraging signs, including the passage of the 

Security Council resolution. But we are far from declaring that that 

has been accomplished in the culture of the United Nations. That 

is something that is still a matter that many of us are concerned, 

whether that message is clearly being broadcast the way it should. 

And that is something that we are going to continue to follow. 

In the meantime, I expect we are going to take some additional action in the Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. We want to thank you both. It has been a very 

powerful hearing, and I hope that your testimony is going to end 

up affecting people, in that, hopefully, thousands of people who otherwise would have been sexually abused, raped, whatever, will not 

have that experience because of people like you who have been 

willing to testify in this manner. 

I want to build on what you just said. I mean, in essence, because the United Nations is providing peacekeepers that in some 

cases, not in every case, are sexually abusing people, our citizens 

here who work hard every day to raise their families and pay 

taxes, they are basically sending money, sending their hard-earned 

money, to an organization that has been unwilling to deal with a 

crisis within it, and that taints America. It taints the taxpayer 

money that we are sending. 

And I hope that, somehow, very soon, the leadership of the 

United Nations will understand that the American people through 

their elected representatives are not going to stand for us sending 

money to an organization that is unwilling to deal with this moral 

depravity that is taking place there, but not being willing to own 

up to a problem and deal with it in an appropriate way. 

So again, we thank you. We appreciate very much your time and 

your travel. The record will remain open through the close of business Friday. And if you could respond fairly promptly to questions, 

my sense is you will want to do that. 

We thank you, again. 

And with that, the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO AMBASSADOR COLEMAN, 

PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY JOCOBSON, AND DEPUTY ASSISTANT SEC- RETARY ROTHSTEIN BY SENATOR CORKER AND SENATOR BOXER

Question 1. In May 2015, Rwanda hosted a conference on the protection of civilians in peacekeeping operations. A set of principles on protection of civilians was 

created including Principle 15 which addresses the issue of peacekeeper abuse. 

What measures have troop- and police-contributing countries taken to integrate the 

Kigali principles into their operations? What are the consequences for TCCs and 

PCCs who fail to comply with the principles? 

Answer. The ‘‘Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians’’ are a set of best 

practices that were developed by Rwanda, in consultation with the United Nations 

(U.N.) and peacekeeping experts, and released at the conclusion of the High-Level 

International Conference on the Protection of Civilians held in Rwanda on May 28 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
56 

and 29, 2015. The Principles are framed around the active role U.N. peacekeepers 

should take to protect civilians, a core mandate for a majority of U.N. peace operations. For countries providing uniformed personnel to peacekeeping missions, there 

already is an expectation that they are trained to support protection of civilians. 

The implementation of the Kigali Principles, however, could address other areas of 

concern that can and often do undermine peacekeeping operations deployed to volatile situations. For example, the Principles were designed to address a range of 

issues, including having national contingents seek to identify early-warning signs of 

violence and take steps to mitigate them; ensuring that troops have the requisite 

authority to use force consistent with the mandate; and, as principle 15 addresses, 

getting countries to vigorously investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute any incidents of abuse. 

Countries have been asked to endorse the Principles by submitting a diplomatic 

note to Rwanda expressing support for the Kigali Principles and the country’s resolve to uphold the pledges contained therein. Endorsement demonstrates a political 

commitment to implement them, where applicable. Endorsement of the Kigali Principles, which is voluntary and non-binding, could become an important part of improving the implementation of protection of civilian mandates and emphasizing its 

importance in mission design, training and other means to support contingents in 

peacekeeping missions. 

To date, eleven countries have endorsed the Principles: Bangladesh, Burkina 

Faso, Ethiopia, Italy, Malawi, the Netherlands, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Uganda, and Uruguay. These countries cumulatively have more than 40,000 uniformed 

personnel in U.N. and AU operations—approximately one in three uniformed personnel across these operations. On May 11, the Netherlands will hold a Ministerial 

event in New York to encourage additional Member State endorsements and to recognize those countries that have already done so. 

The United States is actively encouraging troop- and police-contributing countries 

to endorse the Principles and to develop action plans to implement them. During 

his address at the September 2015 Leaders’ Summit on Peacekeeping, President 

Obama highlighted the importance of the protection of civilians by U.N. peacekeepers and noted ‘‘that’s why the principles and best practices for civilian protection laid out in Kigali are so important.’’ 

Question 2. U.N. Security Resolution 2272 empowers the Secretary-General to replace all military units and/or formed police units of the troop- or police-contributing 

country when that TCC and/or PCC has not taken appropriate action against its 

personnel subject of an allegation or allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse. 

What oversight measures will the United States take at the Security Council take 

to ensure that the Secretary General is complying with the UNSCR 2272? 

Answer. The United States is tracking closely the steps the Secretary-General is 

taking with respect to U.N. Security Council resolution 2272. There will be ongoing 

opportunities for the United States and other Council members to review progress, 

in addition to frequent informal contacts with concerned U.N. offices. The SecretaryGeneral reports regularly (quarterly in the case of most missions), and specifically 

in advance of mandate renewals, to the Security Council on the progress individual 

U.N. peacekeeping operations are making in carrying out their mandates. At U.S. 

urging, mandate resolutions now routinely include a specific request that these reports include information on the mission’s progress in ensuring full compliance with 

the Secretary-General’s policy of zero tolerance for sexual exploitation and abuse 

(SEA). The Secretary-General’s reports are briefed to the Security Council, which 

has ample opportunity to ask questions of the U.N. Secretariat and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General heading the U.N. mission under discussion, including about SEA, and to take appropriate steps. 

In addition, the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) oversees conduct and discipline of U.N. peacekeeping mission members as a 

crosscutting, organization-wide issue, as well as approves individual mission budgets. The United States, as the single largest financial contributor to U.N. peace operations, continues to be a key player on issues related to conduct and discipline 

and performance in general. 

Since the adoption of U.N. Security Council resolution 2272, the United States 

has and will continue to request detailed updates on all outstanding sexual exploitation and abuse allegations in individual missions, including actions taken by relevant troop- or police-contributing countries, and will hold the Secretary-General accountable for enforcing resolution 2272 if a contributing country has not fulfilled the 

resolution’s conditions. During Security Council briefings, the United States will 

also continue to press the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for inforVerDate Mar 15 2010 14:01 Jun 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\2016 HEARINGS -- WORKING\04 13 2016 -- 30-299

FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
57 

mation on any overarching measures he or she has taken to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse in the relevant mission. 

Question 3. Has the United States withheld bilateral assistance for sexual exploitation and abuse violations in U.N. peacekeeping as a result of Leahy vetting? 

Answer. The United States will not provide security assistance, including training, to foreign security force units or individuals for whom we have credible information of having committed gross violations of human rights, including those involving sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA). Individuals or units, against which 

credible evidence of such violations exists, have been excluded from participation in 

U.S.-funded training activities in numerous cases. However, the United States has 

not systematically withheld bilateral assistance as the result of SEA in U.N. peacekeeping due to the lack of available information necessary to sufficiently substantiate such allegations. 

Prior to the release of the U.N. Secretary General’s February 16, 2016 report on 

sexual exploitation and abuse in the U.N. system (‘‘Special Measures for Protection 

from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse—Report of the Secretary-General,’’ released on March 4, 2016), the U.N. declined to release the names or home countries 

of individuals accused of SEA. The February report represents a significant step in 

the right direction, naming the specific troop contributing countries against which 

there are SEA allegations. 

But the United States must continue to rely on engagement with the host government and media reports to identify specific individuals involved in these situations. 

The State Department will continue to engage actively with the U.N. and TCCs to 

identify the names and units allegedly involved in SEA. This will be done to ensure 

the host government investigates and appropriately follows through on these allegations as well to prevent the provision of future assistance to individuals and units 

for which we have credible information of having committed gross violations of 

human rights, including those involving SEA. 

Question 4. Is the unit that was part of the Democratic Republic of Congo contingent in the Central African Republic included in the International Vetting and Security Tracking System (INVEST)? 

Answer. The International Vetting and Tracking (INVEST) system is the 

workflow management tool and official system of record for conducting Leahy vetting. Only cases subject to Leahy vetting are entered into INVEST. Because no U.S. 

Government funds were used to train Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) security 

forces for the deployment to the Central African Republic (CAR), those forces were 

not subject to Leahy vetting. 

Question 5. Given that military and some police are held accountable for allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse in U.N. peacekeeping missions by their national governments, what is the process by which U.N. civilian peacekeeping personnel held accountable for sexual exploitation and abuse? 

Answer. When a U.N. civilian staff member in a peacekeeping operation is accused of any type of misconduct (including sexual exploitation and abuse), the investigation is either undertaken by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) or 

the mission itself, depending on the details of the allegation. If an allegation of misconduct against a U.N. civilian staff member is substantiated, there is an array of 

administrative sanctions that the U.N. can impose appropriate to the misconduct, 

ranging from withholding benefits to dismissal. 

The Secretary General is required by General Assembly resolution 62/63 to bring 

credible allegations that reveal that a crime may have been committed by United 

Nations officials and experts on mission to the attention of the accused person’s 

State of nationality. While civilian personnel enjoy functional immunity from legal 

processes in a host country for actions performed as part of their official duties, immunity should not apply in SEA cases because such behavior is outside official capacity. 

Regardless, the Secretary General can also waive immunity for international staff 

in order to allow prosecution by local authorities in the host country. In cases where 

the U.N. refers a substantiated allegation of misconduct to the country of nationality, the U.N. follows up on the case regularly and can provide appropriate assistance requested by the country for investigation and/or prosecution. 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER
58 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED TO PETER YEO, PRESIDENT, 

BETTER WORLD CAMPAIGN, AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND ADVOCACY, UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION, BY SENATOR CORKER

Question 1. In May 2015, Rwanda hosted a conference on the protection of civilians in peacekeeping operations. A set of principles on protection of civilians was 

created including Principle 15 which addresses the issue of peacekeeper abuse. 

What measures have troop- and police-contributing countries taken to integrate the 

Kigali principles into their operations? What are the consequences for TCCs and 

PCCs who fail to comply with the principles? 

Answer. The Kigali Principles are a voluntary set of principles on the protection 

of civilians in peacekeeping initially agreed upon by the governments of Rwanda, 

Italy, Netherlands, Uruguay and Uganda following the High Level International 

Conference on Protection of Civilians in May 2015. Since then, Ethiopia, Senegal, 

Malawi, Burkina Faso, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Poland have also endorsed. 

With respect to the United Nations factoring in the Principles, all else being 

equal, the Secretariat is giving priority to deploying countries that have agreed to 

the Principles versus those that have not. That being said, the Kigali principles are 

voluntary commitments, and, in the U.N.’s pre-deployment assessment of troop contributing countries (TCCs), they do not hold Kigali signatories to a higher standard 

than other troop contributors. Thus, all peacekeepers are expected to implement the 

protection mandate, whether or not they have committed to the Principles, and the 

Secretary-General has made it clear that refusals to obey orders may result in repatriation of contributed units. The Principles are important, however, because they 

clearly lay out an approach to civilian protection to which TCCs explicitly and publicly agree: a willingness to use force and a commitment to train and prepare troops 

and invest them with the authority to act. 

Question 2. Given that military and some police are held accountable for allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse in U.N. peacekeeping missions by their national governments, what is the process by which U.N. civilian peacekeeping personnel held accountable for sexual exploitation and abuse? 

Answer. For civilians, when an allegation of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse is reported, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)—the internal oversight 

body of the U.N.—makes a determination whether it will investigate or whether it 

will refer the case to the mission for investigation. For most serious cases, OIOS 

will generally take the lead, or if it grants the lead to the mission, it may request 

to review the outcome of the investigation to determine if it wishes to take any further investigative action. If an allegation is substantiated, depending on the severity, the individual could receive anything from written censure to payment suspension to demotion to dismissal. 

In 2015, 30 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse were made against United 

Nations staff members and related personnel other than those deployed in peacekeeping operations and special political missions. Of the 30, 12 of the cases were 

unsubstantiated or closed, 3 have been substantiated and in the 15 others cases, the 

investigation is continuing (as of the February 2016 Secretary-General report). Of 

the three substantiated cases, the perpetrators’ contract was terminated for two of 

the individuals and one case is under review by management for disciplinary action. 

Information on investigations and disciplinary action is regularly updated on the 

U.N.’s Conduct and Discipline Unit (CDU) website. 

In terms of immunity, U.N. officials have immunity only while carrying out their 

professional functions. In the case of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, immunity does 

not apply. Member States have the authority to subject their nationals to criminal 

process. In several past instances, governments have requested waivers of immunity, and the U.N. has confirmed that no immunity applies. 

United Nations officials and experts on mission also may be referred for criminal 

accountability when allegations of sexual abuse have been substantiated or a Host 

Country may decide to investigate such crimes. Prosecutions by the Host Country 

will likely involve the conduct of prior national investigations. Field missions may 

be called upon to cooperate with the Host Country in carrying out all necessary investigations, in accordance with the provisions of status of force agreements or status of mission agreements. 

Æ 


FOREI-42327 with DISTILLER