ShareThis Page

U.N. Watch: No immunity

| Sunday, June 7, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

The not-so-secret scandal of serial sexual abuse that's alleged during United Nations peacekeeping missions is under increased scrutiny from an advocacy group, which is demanding an end to immunity for U.N. personnel and an independent commission to investigate allegations.

The Code Blue campaign by the group AIDS-Free World is supported by former diplomats and U.N. staff, Newsweek reports. The group's announcement followed a leaked internal U.N. report detailing sexual abuse by French troops assisting U.N. peacekeepers in the Central African Republic. The soldiers allegedly exploited starving children in exchange for food.

In typical U.N. fashion, Turtle Bay went after the messenger, temporarily suspending the official who leaked the report, according to The Guardian newspaper. Anders Kompass has since returned to work but faces a U.N. investigation.

This is precisely the kind of U.N. damage control that has enabled sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeepers and non-military personnel — who allegedly commit most of the atrocities during peacekeeping missions, according to AIDS-Free World. Among 79 allegations of sexual abuse reported last year, 69 percent of the accused were non-military workers and protected by immunity.

This sickening trend will continue until the accused, peacekeepers and non-military personnel alike, are stripped of their U.N. immunity and prosecuted.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.