“MONUSCO needs to assist us. They can’t reject us, especially since we are the products of what our fathers did when they were working for them.” (PKFC, Kisangani).
United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations (PKOs) are an effective tool for promoting and maintaining international peace and security (Hegre et al.
2019). As of February 2021, twelve PKOs are deployed to support political peace amidst violence and insecurity in conflict settings around the world. While most missions play a critical role in containing conflict, they also produce a range of unintended consequences (Aoi et al.
2007). Sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), in particular, has surfaced as an endemic problem during PKOs that undermines the UNs’ efforts to protect civilians (Westendorf and Searle
2017). Deployed in areas of extreme poverty, the relative affluence of peacekeepers compared to civilians—many of whom are struggling to survive—creates power imbalances that increase the vulnerability of local populations, particularly women and girls, to SEA (Shotton
2006). The breakdown of community structure and lack of basic necessities in countries of UN peacekeeping (UNPK) deployment has been found to drive civilians to seek out relationships with peacekeepers
1 or to trade sex in exchange for food, shelter, money, or other goods (Nordås and Rustad
2013). Where sexual relations lead to pregnancy, peacekeepers are often redeployed elsewhere or repatriated from host state communities before their children are born (Blau
2016).
2 Since civilians are already fighting existential problems, children left behind by peacekeepers have been shown to substantially weaken the economic security of their families (Lee and Bartels
2019; Wagner et al.
2020). The Special Advisor of the UN Secretary General (SG), Prince Zeid Raad Al-Hussein, acknowledged in 2005 that “many victims, especially those who have “peacekeeper babies” and have been abandoned by the fathers, are in desperate financial situation[s]” (UN General Assembly
2005, 25).
Notwithstanding the challenges faced by mothers and children, limited progress has been made with economic and social reparations (Ferstman
2019). Peacekeeper-fathered children (PKFC), in particular, have little agency in matters of assistance since they are often too young to demand compensation themselves and have little to no information about their fathers (Blau
2016; DeLaet
2007). Moreover, their “victim status”
3 is entangled with that of their mothers, presenting a new form of victimhood that poses challenges to traditional models of justice (Baines and Oliveira
2020). In this article, we will discuss the situation of PKFC in host state communities and explore their rights under UN policies and international frameworks for support. We will do so by centring the voices of mothers who conceived children with peacekeepers and the children born of these relations. To our knowledge, this is the first study to present the views of PKFC families regarding UN programming to enhance the delivery of justice for victims. Based on the experiences of mothers and PKFC in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we will discuss “what works” in terms of victim assistance and whether recent changes in UN policy towards a victim-oriented approach to SEA and paternity have in fact benefitted those on whose behalf they were implemented. In doing so, we argue that an evaluation of the UN’s accountability system by victims
4 is crucial for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the mechanisms in place to support them (Tamarit et al.
2010). Our work makes several key contributions to the ongoing academic and policy debates on sexual misconduct at the hands of UN peacekeepers, by (1) presenting the concerns of mothers and PKFC, (2) outlining local barriers to child support and paternity claims and, (3) portraying victims’ demands regarding the reorientation of existing policies to meet the UN’s stated goals.
We start by outlining the UN’s response to SEA and childbirth and providing contextual information on the DRC, where the field research for this study was conducted. We then demonstrate the gaps in UN protocols for assistance based on the experiences of thirty-five PKFC and sixty mothers, and finally discuss policy considerations to improve their access to support services.
Responding to the Needs of Victims
Securing compensation and assistance for victims of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) are basic principles of reconciling conflict-torn societies (UN General Assembly
1985). Perpetrated by UN peacekeepers, SEA occurs within the broader context of SGBV but is unique given the particular authority and status of PKOs. Although the principle of victim care and well-being applies, the UN—who does not have its own criminal justice system—depends on member states to enforce justice and accountability.
While improving the procedures involved in mitigating the harmful effects of SEA for victims is now considered a priority, historically, UN policy and programming regarding SEA-related issues have often overlooked the severely deficient mechanisms for their assistance. From the 1990s when SEA was first addressed as a serious concern both in the academic and political discourse, the emphasis was on the perpetrators, and the key concerns were to understand better the nature of SEA, the reasons for the systematic perpetration of sexual offences by peacekeepers and the cultural factors contributing to SEA (Nordås and Rustad
2013; Freedman
2018). As a result, significant attention was devoted to the prevention of future misconduct and comparatively little to helping existing victims overcome the physical, psychological and social effects of SEA (Ferstman
2019). In 2003, the UN announced “zero tolerance” towards SEA and adopted “special measures for protection” (UN Secretariat
2003). Since then, most sexual relations between UNPK personnel and beneficiaries of assistance are classified as exploitative or abusive, due to an assumed imbalance of power. Framed by the 2003 bulletin, sexual abuse refers to sexual relations with minors under eighteen or sexual acts inflicted in a forced or coercive manner, while sexual exploitation refers to sexual relations that involve “a level of agency and negotiation” but occur in a coercive environment (UN Secretariat
2003; Otto
2007, 260). Sexual exploitation includes “transactional sex” and “sexually exploitative relationships” which thrive on vulnerability and are therefore also prohibited (UN General Assembly
2017; Conduct in UN Field Missions
2020b). In spite of increasingly comprehensive policies aimed at preventing sexual misconduct, SEA allegations have continued to proliferate in the peacekeeping context.
5
While the international community has prioritized issues around prevention, reforms to improve accountability have centralized punitive justice and again, undermined the rights of victims to effective remedies (Burke
2014; Mudgway
2016). Nonetheless, still only a fraction of implicated peacekeepers are prosecuted or convicted which discourages victims from pursuing compensation through judicial procedures (Kovatch
2016). Political and structural barriers create jurisdictional limitations that complicate the accountability processes through agreements that grant each category of UN personnel their own set of immunities and disciplinary measures (Blau
2016). UN officials, civilian staff and experts on mission for whom the primary jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute SEA falls with the country where the alleged criminal act occurred benefit from functional immunity for actions undertaken while in official UN capacity (UN Treaty Series
1946). Although the SG can waive immunity for UN staff accused of committing serious crimes, SEA often takes place in countries with failed judicial systems that may not be able or willing to prosecute offenders and thus, using this leverage is often ineffective (Miller
2007). Under the domestic law of host countries, fathers may be required to pay child support for children they abandon. However, purported fathers often live in a different jurisdiction beyond the reach of host state courts. Without UN cooperation,
6 mothers have no realistic prospect of recovering maintenance payments across borders since few host states have joined international conventions such as the “Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance” that would enable court systems to enforce judgments in another country (Lee
2017; Simić and O'Brien 2014).
In relation to military contingents, the Status-of-Forces Agreement (SOFA) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) determine that only troop-contributing countries (TCCs) can prosecute misconduct (UN General Assembly
1990,
2011). This means that uniformed personnel are not subject to sanctions by the UN or host state, but that the responsibility to investigate SEA lies with peacekeepers’ countries of origin (Simm
2013). Where PKFC were born as a result of SEA, member states are required to pursue paternity claims under the national legal system of the purported father (Conduct in UN Field Missions
2020a). The deputy spokesperson for the UN SG elaborated that the responsibility for child support rests with individual peacekeepers since “compensation is a matter of personal accountability” (UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
2017). This proves challenging, however. TCCs are often reluctant to follow up on claims regarding their own nationals or lack resources to do so, making it impossible for victims to access assistance through legal institutions (Vandenberg
2017). Sometimes acts constituting SEA according to the UN definition do not constitute a criminal offence under the national legislation of TCCs and cannot be penalized in local courts (Mandrup and Cold-Ravnkilde
2017). Bound by the SOFA and MoU, the UN’s role in advancing paternity and child support claims is restricted to coordinating with member states and facilitating DNA testing where national legislation permits it (UN General Assembly
2015). In 2015, the UN documented a response rate from TCCs regarding paternity matters of only 20%
7 (UN General Assembly
2015). Notwithstanding the organization’s efforts to translate its policies into constructive action, in practice UN policies for child support have largely failed to assist PKFC. Despite the UN’s intentions to end impunity, there is still a critical legal accountability gap and numerous barriers for victims of SEA to realize their rights.
Questioning the appropriateness of trials as a path to justice, more recent scholarship has promoted restorative justice and social repair (DeLaet
2007; Freedman
2018). Aligning with better-informed ideals of justice, public attention shifted towards creating a greater understanding of the needs of SEA victims, including mothers and those born as a result of SEA. The UN publicly acknowledged PKFC in 2008 with the adoption of a “Comprehensive Strategy on Assistance and Support for Victims” that considered children born to peacekeepers amongst those directly affected by SEA (UN General Assembly
2008). According to the strategy, complainants (individuals who reported SEA) were entitled to basic assistance, e.g. emergency medical care, and victims (individuals whose complaints were verified) were entitled to additional reparative support.
8 Children born as a result of SEA were to receive “assistance and support addressing the medical, psychological and social consequences directly arising from sexual exploitation and abuse, in the best interests of the child” (UN General Assembly
2008, 4). Moreover, all those affected could request “immediate material care, such as food, clothing, emergency and safe shelter”. The implementation of the outlined response, however, depended on the availability of local services that often had not been allocated adequate UN funding (Mudgway
2016).
9 Although aid was guaranteed to all “children who are found by a competent national authority to have been born as a result of acts of SEA” (UN General Assembly
2008, 3), the number of individuals who have received concrete assistance is extremely small (Office of Internal Oversight Services
2015; Bureau des Avocats Internationaux
2019a).
Since 2004, the effectiveness of structural and operational policies on protection from SEA has been discussed annually in a SG report. Prompted by shortcomings regarding victim assistance that were highlighted in the 2015 report, SG Ban Ki-moon established the Trust Fund in Support of Victims (hereafter “Trust Fund”) in 2016 to address service gaps in the provision of support (UN General Assembly
2016). Designed to support relevant in-country entities in providing specialized services to victims, the Trust Fund does not provide financial compensation to individual victims but funding to organizations who offer, for instance, rehabilitative and transformative opportunities to beneficiaries (UN Peacekeeping
2020). In 2017, SG António Guterres outlined a “new approach” to victim support, anchored in the creation of a new position within the UN–the Victims’ Rights Advocate (VRA). The first VRA, Jane Connors, seeks to reinforce a victim-centred, rights-based approach to SEA, embodying the new momentum and seriousness with which the organization aims to remove barriers to assistance for victims (Connors
2020). Additional Field VRAs have been designated as the “main contact for victims on the ground” (Connors
2020, 503). An updated protocol on victim assistance endorsed in December 2019 represents the organization’s evolution in the provision of support since 2008 and aspires to be “age, disability-and gender sensitive, non-discriminatory and culturally appropriate” (UN Protocol
2019). Consequently, victims have the right to choose between a range of options for assistance, amongst them education and professional support. Despite its stated victim-centred approach, building effective capacity and avenues for assistance remains challenging. Haitian attorneys who published a series of letters to the VRA after filing paternity suits for ten PKFC in 2015 have suggested that protocols may still not be implemented as proposed (Bureau des Avocats Internationaux
2019a,
2019b,
2020). The legal team argued that years after initiating legal action, no child support claim has resulted in sustained assistance and the UN allegedly remained “non-responsive, non-cooperative and opaque in its approach, failing to provide essential evidentiary documentation and adequate and transparent assistance to clients”. (Bureau des Avocats Internationaux
2019b, 1). The UN thus continues to be perceived as failing to uphold its obligation to facilitate paternity claims, ensure child support and comply with their own standards of transparency.
The 2019 protocol on assistance states that the views of children are a “significant factor in the settlement” of victim-related issues, yet very little is known about their interests or perspectives (UN Protocol
2019, 6). Through the prism of the ongoing PKO in the DRC, the present study seeks to explore their needs and rights.